In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. However, the apex court set aside the ₹1 lakh penalty that was initially imposed on Patkar.

The case dates back to 2000 when Saxena, then the president of the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties, filed a defamation suit against Patkar. The lawsuit was triggered by a press note issued by Patkar on November 24, 2000, titled “True Face of a Patriot,” in which she made several allegations against Saxena. These allegations included accusations of Saxena's involvement in hawala transactions and claims that a ₹40,000 cheque given to the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) by Saxena had bounced due to a non-existent account. Patkar also labeled Saxena a coward and questioned his patriotism.

In April 2025, a trial court convicted Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding her statements to be deliberately malicious and intended to damage Saxena's reputation. The court sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. The trial court had exempted her from a jail sentence by applying probation.

Patkar appealed the conviction, but the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's decision on July 29, 2025. The High Court emphasized that Patkar had not addressed the defamatory content of the press note in her appeal, which accused Saxena of "mortgaging" the people and resources of Gujarat to foreign interests. The High Court deemed this a direct attack on Saxena's integrity and public service.

Before the Supreme Court, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Patkar, argued that the appellate court had dismissed two major witnesses and that the email presented as crucial evidence was not certified according to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible. He contended that there was no direct evidence linking Patkar to the press note and that the chain of evidence was incomplete.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Saxena, argued that at least a token penalty should be imposed on Patkar.

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to interfere with the conviction but agreed to set aside the ₹1 lakh penalty. The court also modified the probation order, allowing Patkar to furnish bonds instead of requiring her periodic appearance.