Supreme Court Declines to Quash Defamation Case Against Sukhbir Singh Badal
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition filed by former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, challenging criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him. Mr. Badal had sought to quash the complaint and summoning order related to remarks he allegedly made, linking the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) to the banned terror organisation Babbar Khalsa International (BKI). A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu heard the matter, designated as Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Rajinder Pal Singh, and ultimately declined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings.
Genesis of the Defamation Complaint
The dispute originated during the 2017 Punjab Assembly election campaign. Rajinder Pal Singh, who is associated with the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, a Sikh religious organisation, filed a defamation complaint against Mr. Badal. Mr. Singh alleged that following a visit by then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to his residence, Mr. Badal made statements to the media. These statements reportedly described the AKJ as the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International and also referred to Mr. Singh as the organisation’s spokesperson. Mr. Singh contended that these remarks severely damaged his reputation by associating him and the AKJ with a proscribed terrorist entity.
Following the complaint, a Chandigarh magistrate issued a summons to Mr. Badal in the criminal defamation case. This judicial action prompted Mr. Badal to seek legal recourse to have the proceedings terminated.
High Court and Supreme Court Appeals
In response to the magistrate's summons, Mr. Badal approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, filing a plea to quash both the defamation complaint and the summoning order. However, the High Court dismissed his petition in October 2025, thereby allowing the criminal defamation proceedings to continue. Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, Mr. Badal subsequently moved the Supreme Court of India, seeking relief from the ongoing legal action.
Arguments Before the Apex Court
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Mr. Badal, arguing that the defamation case should not proceed. Mr. Sibal contended that Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh could not legitimately claim to be the spokesperson for the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. He further submitted that Mr. Badal had never explicitly described Mr. Singh as the organisation’s spokesperson, asserting that Mr. Singh himself made that claim.
Justice Datta, however, referred to the material relied upon in the original complaint. The Bench specifically noted newspaper reports cited within the complaint. One such report attributed a statement to Mr. Badal describing the AKJ as the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International. Another report, also referenced in the complaint, alleged that Mr. Badal had referred to Mr. Singh as the AKJ’s spokesperson. Mr. Sibal questioned the admissibility and reliability of these newspaper reports without the journalists who authored them being examined as witnesses. He argued that such reports should not be stretched to attribute statements directly to Mr. Badal. Additionally, Mr. Sibal reiterated his argument that Mr. Singh lacked the necessary authorisation to represent the AKJ.
Court's Rationale and Disposition
Despite the arguments presented by Mr. Sibal, Justice Datta observed that the very material forming the basis of the complaint indicated that Mr. Badal had, in fact, recognised and referred to Mr. Singh as the spokesperson for the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Justice Datta remarked, “The difficulty is you recognise him and say he is the spokesperson.” This observation underscored the Court's view that the complaint contained sufficient grounds to proceed with the defamation case, based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
Following these deliberations, the Supreme Court proceeded to dismiss Mr. Badal's plea, thereby refusing to quash the criminal defamation proceedings. The decision ensures that the case will continue in the lower courts, allowing the allegations to be adjudicated through the established legal process.