New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain social activist Medha Patkar’s plea seeking permission to examine an additional witness in her decades-old defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena. Patkar had challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision, arguing that the court limited her right to lead evidence under Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed reluctance to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s ruling. Afterward, Patkar’s counsel asked to withdraw the matter, which the apex court allowed. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, instructed by advocates Gajinder Kumar and Kiran Jai, appeared on caveat for Saxena.
Patkar filed the defamation complaint in December 2000, alleging that a newspaper advertisement published on November 10, 2000, defamed her. The complaint named three individuals, including the publisher, the editor, and V.K. Saxena. Proceedings against two of the accused ended after a 2008 compromise, but the trial against Saxena continued.
After Saxena pleaded not guilty, Patkar’s side presented evidence. Between 2018 and 2024, four prosecution witnesses testified, including Patkar herself. However, the trial faced repeated delays due to settlement efforts, the Covid-19 pandemic, and multiple adjournments.
In February, Patkar filed an application under Section 254(1) of the CrPC to summon a new witness not listed originally. Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma of Saket Courts rejected the application, citing the case’s 24-year pendency and the timing of her request.
The court stated, “The complainant has already examined all witnesses listed at the time of filing the complaint.” It added that Patkar had previously applied under Section 254(2) but did not include this witness, casting doubt on the necessity and genuineness of her request.
Patkar approached the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, claiming the trial court wrongly treated her Section 254(1) application as if it fell under Section 254(2). She argued that denying a voluntary witness violated her right to a fair trial and that most trial delays were beyond her control.
Saxena’s counsel countered that introducing a new witness 25 years after the complaint represented an afterthought and would only prolong the proceedings.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed Patkar’s petition in a detailed 19-page judgment dated July 29. The judgment stressed that Section 254(1) allows a complainant to lead evidence but does not grant unlimited liberty to produce new witnesses without justification. Granting Patkar’s request, the court noted, would undermine Section 254(2) and encourage endless trial delays. The judgment also highlighted that the application failed to explain the delay or the witness’s relevance at such a late stage.
The Delhi High Court concluded that the trial court “carefully analysed the petitioner’s contentions, harmonised statutory interpretation, and considered the long pendency and past conduct to reach a legally sustainable conclusion.” The Supreme Court’s refusal effectively ends Patkar’s attempt to present the new witness.
The case underscores the challenge of balancing a complainant’s right to lead evidence with the need to prevent undue delays in India’s already overburdened criminal justice system.
Also Read : “Stray Dogs Case Today: Supreme Court Bench to Hear”
