Recently, the Delhi High Court issued a notice on a plea challenging the dismissal of an application to introduce an additional witness in a defamation case filed by activist Medha Patkar against Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. The Court refrained from staying the recording of Saxena's statement under Section 313 CrPC, while observing that the case has been pending for 24 years.
The dispute dates back to the year 2000 when Medha Patkar initiated defamation proceedings against Vinai Kumar Saxena, who was then the head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO "Council for Civil Liberties." The case arose from allegedly defamatory advertisements published against Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. In response, Saxena also filed a defamation suit against Patkar over a press note dated November 25, 2000, wherein she allegedly labeled him as "not a patriot but a coward." In that case, Patkar was convicted and sentenced to five months of simple imprisonment in 2023, but the sentence was suspended upon her being granted bail.
Patkar challenged the trial court's March 18 order dismissing her application to introduce a new witness. She argued that, under Section 254(1) CrPC, she had the legal right to examine any witness in support of her case and that there was no statutory bar on exercising this right at a later stage. It was asserted that the additional witness was crucial for substantiating her defamation claim and ensuring a fair trial.
The High Court took note of the prolonged pendency of the case and orally remarked, "This is one of the oldest matters, pending for 24 years." The Court further noted that the trial court had rejected Patkar’s application on the ground that it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings rather than a bona fide necessity.
The trial court had observed, "The complainant has not provided any explanation as to when, how, or under what circumstances she became aware of this witness. If she was aware of the witness from the outset, she has offered no justification for the prolonged delay in summoning them. Conversely, if she claims to have only recently discovered the witness, she has not explained how such discovery occurred. This lack of explanation further weakens the credibility of her request."
The High Court, while considering the plea, did not grant an immediate stay on Saxena’s examination under Section 313 CrPC, which allows the accused to explain circumstances against them in the trial.
After issuing notice on the petition, the Court sought a response from Saxena and scheduled the matter for further hearing in May.
Picture Source :
