Supreme Court dismisses Sukhbir Badal plea to quash defamation case over 2017 remarks
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Shiromani Akali Dal chief Sukhbir Singh Badal’s plea seeking to quash a criminal defamation complaint filed against him over remarks he allegedly made in 2017 linking a religious organisation to terrorist outfit Babbar Khalsa International.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu declined to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court order refusing to quash the complaint and a March 2020 summoning order issued by a judicial magistrate.
The complaint relates to remarks allegedly made by Badal in January 2017, when he was Punjab deputy chief minister, in which he described the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) as a "political front" of Babbar Khalsa International.
The complainant, who approached the court in his individual capacity, claimed to be the chief spokesperson of AKJ and alleged that Badal’s remarks were defamatory.
During Friday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Badal, argued that the former Punjab deputy chief minister had not specifically referred to the complainant as the organisation’s spokesperson.
"He (complainant) says he is the spokesperson. We don't know who has authorised him," Sibal said.
The bench, however, was not persuaded and dismissed Badal’s plea.
"We have read this order. What is alleged against you (Badal)? You say that this organisation is a terrorist organisation and this complainant is the spokesperson of the other organisation which is the political front...," the bench told Sibal.
Badal had challenged an October 2025 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which refused to quash the defamation complaint and the magistrate’s summoning order, along with subsequent proceedings.
The complainant had alleged that Badal made the remarks during political rallies and in statements to the media, after then Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal visited his residence in January 2017. The remarks were subsequently reported by newspapers, according to the complaint.
Before the high court, Badal’s lawyers had argued that the statements did not constitute defamation even on a prima facie basis. They had also questioned the complainant’s authority to file the case, arguing that there was no authorisation from AKJ.
The high court, while rejecting Badal’s plea, had clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the petition and would not affect the proceedings before the magistrate.
The criminal defamation proceedings against Badal will therefore continue before the trial court.
(With inputs from PTI)
