Saxena filed the case against Patkar for defamation stemming from a press note titled "True Face of Patriot," dated November 25, 2000. In the press note, Patkar said “VKSaxena, one who is pained by the Hawala transactions himself came to Malegaon, praised NBA and give a cheque of Rs. 40,000. Lok Samiti naively and promptly sent the receipt and the letter, which shows honesty and good record keeping then anything else. But the cheque could not be encashed and got bounced. On enquiry, the bank reported the account does not exist."

In response to Patkar's statement accusing Saxena of being a coward and not a patriot, Saxena filed a complaint against her in 2001. Subsequently, a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) court in Ahmedabad acknowledged the offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and initiated legal proceedings against Patkar under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). On February 3, 2003, the case was transferred to a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court in the national capital following orders from the Supreme Court. In 2011, Patkar entered a plea of not guilty and opted for a trial.

The judge stated that Patkar's actions were deliberate and malicious, intended to tarnish Saxena's reputation, resulting in significant harm to his credibility and standing in society.

“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,” the court said.

The judge further highlighted that Patkar's statements, labeling Saxena as a coward and questioning his patriotism, along with insinuations about his involvement in hawala transactions, were not only inherently defamatory but also designed to provoke negative opinions and perceptions about him.

“Furthermore, the accusation that the complainant was mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service,” the court observed.

Additionally, the judge emphasized that Patkar failed to present any evidence to refute these accusations or demonstrate that she did not anticipate or intend the harm that these allegations would inflict.

“The resulting inquiries and doubts raised among the complainant's acquaintances, as well as the shift in perception highlighted by the witnesses, underscore the significant damage to his reputation,” the court said.