The NBA, founded by Patkar, is a social movement that began in 1985 to protest the environmental and social impacts of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, covering four major states – Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. The project, while aimed at providing water and electricity to several states, faced criticism for displacing thousands without adequate rehabilitation. Patkar led the movement against the Sardar Sarovar Project by holding various hunger strikes and rallies and gathering support from notable personalities.

Saxena’s NGO, the National Council for Civil Liberties, at the time, was chiefly involved in issues pertaining to unfair trade practices adopted by companies, bringing to the fore large-scale evasion of sales tax in interstate transactions and other public interest matters.

Saxena, who was actively involved in ensuring the timely completion of the Sardar Sarovar Project, filed the defamation case on January 18, 2001, alleging that Patkar's press release contained false accusations intended to harm his reputation.

How the case progressed

The case was first brought before an Ahmedabad trial court on January 18, 2001, following the issuance of the contentious press release. A police report was filed on March 8, 2001, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) inquiry initiated by the Ahmedabad court's metropolitan magistrate.

On April 10, 2001, the magistrate took cognisance of the offence under section 500 (defamation) of the IPC and issued a summons against Patkar after reviewing the police report and the facts stated by Saxena.

The case was transferred to a Delhi court in 2003. After a lengthy legal process, the Delhi court framed a notice against Patkar on November 1, 2011. Patkar pleaded not guilty, leading to a protracted trial.

During the hearings, Saxena testified that the press release was issued with an ulterior motive to defame him. His claims were supported by two witnesses who testified that their high regard for Saxena was diminished after reading the press release.

On May 24, 2024, the court convicted Patkar, concluding that her actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing Saxena’s reputation. The court noted that Patkar failed to provide evidence to counter Saxena’s claims.

“It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (Patkar) published the imputations with the intent and knowledge that they would harm the reputation of the complainant and, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). She is hereby convicted of the same,” stated the court order.

It added: “The accused's statements, calling the complainant a coward, not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions, were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions.”

Potential sentencing and legal position

Patkar faces a possible punishment of up to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both. The court is currently hearing arguments on the quantum of the sentence, with Saxena's counsel, Gajinder Kumar, seeking the maximum punishment, citing Patkar's history of alleged defamatory actions. The Delhi court will hear the case on June 7 for the point of sentencing.

Apart from this case, Saxena has filed another defamation suit against Patkar for statements made in 2006 on a television channel. Patkar has also filed a counter-defamation case against Saxena for an advertisement published in November 2000. Both cases are currently pending.

The case highlights the ongoing debate over criminal defamation in India. Two landmark Supreme Court rulings can be particularly relevant in the current context.

In Rajendra Sail vs Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association (2005), the top court held that allegations must be made with due diligence and should not be reckless or unfounded. The court highlighted that while criticism is a part of free speech, it should not amount to defamation unless it can be substantiated with credible evidence.

In Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India (2016), the apex court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, emphasising the need to balance freedom of speech with the right to reputation. The court ruled that the law serves a legitimate state interest and does not unduly restrict free speech.

These legal battles underscore the complex interplay between activism, public interest and the right to reputation, coupled with the rigorous judicial scrutiny involved in defamation cases in India.