Supreme Court refuses to quash defamation case against Sukhbir Singh Badal for comment linking AKJ to terror outfit

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal challenging criminal defamation proceedings pending against him for allegedly linking Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) with the banned terror outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) [Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Rajinder Pal Singh].

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed the plea filed by Badal, who presently serves as the President of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD).

The defamation case against Badal was filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, who is associated with the AKJ, a Sikh religious organisation associated with Gurbani kirtan and Sikh religious practice.

The dispute arose during the 2017 Punjab Assembly election campaign after then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal visited Rajinder Pal Singh's residence. Referring to the visit, Badal is reported to have said that Kejriwal had begun liaising with radicals in Punjab.

Singh alleged that Badal had made remarks to the media describing AKJ as the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International and also referred to Singh as the organisation’s spokesperson.

Singh filed a defamation complaint in the matter, alleging that Badal's remarks had damaged his reputation by associating him and AKJ with a banned terrorist organisation.

A Chandigarh magistrate subsequently summoned Badal in the criminal defamation case.

Badal then moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of both the defamation complaint and the summoning order.

The High Court dismissed his plea in October 2025, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Badal today, argued that the defamation case should not proceed.

Justice Datta, however, referred to the material relied upon in the complaint and questioned Sibal’s contention that Rajinder Pal Singh could not claim to be AKJ’s spokesperson.

Sibal maintained that Badal had never described Singh as the organisation’s spokesperson.

“I don’t say he is a spokesperson. He (Singh) says he is a spokesperson,” Sibal submitted.

The Bench then referred to newspaper reports relied upon in the complaint. One report attributed to Badal a statement describing AKJ as the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International.

Justice Datta also referred to another report in which Badal was alleged to have referred to Singh as AKJ’s spokesperson.

Sibal questioned whether such newspaper reports could be relied upon without the journalists who wrote them being examined as witnesses.

“This is reporting. Reporters are saying that I said. Your Lordships should not stretch this and put this in my mouth,” he submitted.

He also argued that Singh had no authorisation to represent AKJ.

Justice Datta, however, pointed out that the material relied upon in the complaint itself indicated that Badal had referred to Singh as AKJ’s spokesperson.

“The difficulty is you recognise him and say he is the spokesperson,” Justice Datta remarked.

The Court proceeded to dismiss Badal's plea.

[Read Live Coverage]