'Deliberate Attempt To Delay Trial': Delhi Court Rejects Medha Patkar's Plea To Introduce New Witness In Defamation Case Against LG VK Saxena

A Delhi Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar to introduce and examine an additional witness to prove her defamation case lodged against Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.

JMFC Raghav Sharma of Saket Courts observed that the application was a deliberate attempt to delay the trial rather than a genuine necessity.

The Court said that allowing such applications “without proper justification” would set a dangerous precedent. It added that neither Patkar nor any of her witnesses referred to the new witness at any stage of the trial and if the said witness was genuinely relevant, his or her name or role in the case would have been mentioned at some point during the last 24 years of proceedings.

The judge observed that if parties are permitted to introduce new witnesses arbitrarily at such a late stage, trials would become never-ending, as litigants could continuously bring forth new witnesses whenever it suits them, thereby prolonging proceedings indefinitely.

“The judicial process cannot be held hostage to such tactics, especially in a case that has already been pending for over two decades,” the Court said.

Saxena, who is presently Delhi LG, was the head of an Ahmedabad based NGO namely “Council for Civil Liberties” in 2000 when Patkar filed the defamation case against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

On the other hand, Saxena also filed a defamation case against Patkar for defaming him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled "true face of patriot.” Patkar allegedly said that Saxena was a coward and not a patriot. In that case, Patkar was sentenced to 5 months simple imprisonment last year. The sentence was later suspended and she was granted bail.

In relation to her defamation case against Saxena, Patkar moved the application to introduce a new witness arguing that she was well within her rights to examine any witness to prove her case under section 254(1) of CrPC and that there was no embargo on such right.

Dismissing the application, the Court said that the case has been pending for 24 years and Patkar has already examined all the witnesses initially listed at the time of filing the complaint.

“Notably, she had previously filed an application to summon additional witnesses u/s 254(2) Cr.PC, yet she did not mention the present witness in that application. If this witness was truly material to her case, she would have either included them in the original list of witnesses or, at the very least, mentioned them in the earlier application for additional witness,” the Court said.

It added: “The fact that this witness has surfaced only now, after all of the complainants witnesses have been examined, raises serious doubts about the genuineness of this request.”

The judge further said that the complete absence of any reference to the witness in question suggested that it was an afterthought, possibly introduced to bolster Patkar's case artificially.

“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 Court said.