A Delhi court on Monday issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar.
The warrant was issued due to her failure to appear in cross-defamation cases filed by her and Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) Chairman VK Saxena.
Metropolitan Magistrate Vikrant Vaid took strong objection to Patkar's absence and rejected her request for exemption from appearance through a counsel, who did not possess an authorisation letter from her. The magistrate said the grounds taken by her were ‘not convincing’ and ‘do not inspire confidence of the court’.
The non-bailable warrant is returnable on 10 July, the next date of hearing.
Patkar, through a proxy counsel, said she was attending a protest in a Madhya Pradesh village and was unable to get a confirmed train ticket to come to Delhi to appear in the defamation cases involving her and Saxena.
Patkar and Saxena, president of Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), are embroiled in the legal battle since 2000. Patkar had filed a suit against Saxena for advertisements published by him against her and the NBA.
Saxena, who is now the Chairman of the Khadi Village and Industries Commission (KVIC), said he has been regularly appearing in the case whereas Patkar has remained absent, without valid reasons, on previous occasions.
Patkar had filed a defamation case against Saxena, who in turn, had filed two lawsuits against her.
Refusing to show any leniency towards Patkar, the magistrate said:
The grounds of absence are not convincing and do not inspire confidence of the court. Hence, request for exemption is liable to be rejected on merits.
The court, which posted the next date of hearing for 10 July, noted that the matter was at the stage of prosecution evidence and Section 273 of the CrPC mandates the presence of the accused at this stage.
Evidence cannot be led in the absence of the accused (Patkar). Tersely speaking, Patkar is absent and unrepresented in the court. Even otherwise, ground for absence is not acceptable for she had the knowledge and awareness about the court proceedings. It was incumbent upon her to have made the arrangements for her return to Delhi for appearing in court today. NBW be issued against Medha Patkar and notice to her surety through DCP (South East) for 10 July.
The court also noted that the advocate who appeared on behalf of the main counsel for Patkar had no authorisation to represent her.
Advocate Pawan Madan, who appeared for the accused, sought exemption on the ground that Patkar was demonstrating in Badwani village in Madhya Pradesh against the eviction of villagers and had not been able to get a confirmed train ticket to Delhi.
However, Saxena, who argued in person, said the court should also impose exemplary cost on Patkar in both the cases.
He also pleaded that considering Patkar's approach in these cases, the court should dismiss the case of defamation ‘on default’ filed against him by her.
Saxena submitted that if she had any plan to appear before the court, she could have got a reserved ticket in March itself, as the last date for the case was 28 March.
Earlier, the court in January 2015 had imposed a cost of Rs 3,000 on Patkar for non-appearance before giving her the ‘last and final opportunity’ to appear.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)