The Supreme Court has refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings against former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister and Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal over alleged remarks linking the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) with the banned terrorist organisation Babbar Khalsa International (BKI).

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed Badal's plea challenging the criminal defamation case filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, who is associated with AKJ.

The case stems from the 2017 Punjab Assembly election campaign, when then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had visited Rajinder Pal Singh's residence. Badal allegedly commented that Kejriwal had started liaising with radicals in Punjab.

According to the defamation complaint, Badal had allegedly described AKJ as the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International and referred to Rajinder Pal Singh as the organisation's spokesperson.

Singh alleged that the remarks damaged his reputation by associating him and the religious organisation with a banned terrorist outfit.

A Chandigarh Magistrate subsequently summoned Badal in the criminal defamation proceedings.

Badal challenged the complaint and summoning order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed his plea in October 2025, following which he approached the Supreme Court.

Kapil Sibal Challenges Reliance on Media Reports

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Badal, argued before the Supreme Court that the defamation proceedings should not continue.

Sibal disputed the allegation that Badal had described Rajinder Pal Singh as the spokesperson of AKJ.

When the Bench referred to the material relied upon in the complaint, Sibal submitted that Badal had never himself described Singh as the spokesperson.

The Bench, however, referred to newspaper reports forming part of the complaint, including one report attributing to Badal the statement that AKJ was the “political front” of Babbar Khalsa International.

Justice Dipankar Datta also referred to another report in which Badal was allegedly quoted as describing Singh as AKJ's spokesperson.

Sibal questioned whether such newspaper reports could be relied upon without examining the journalists who had authored them as witnesses.

He argued that the reports merely attributed statements to Badal and submitted that the Court should not “put this in my mouth.”

The Bench, however, pointed to the material forming part of the complaint and observed that it indicated that Badal had referred to Singh as the spokesperson.

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

The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed Badal's plea, allowing the criminal defamation proceedings to continue.

The decision does not amount to a finding of guilt against Badal. The criminal defamation case will proceed before the competent court in accordance with law.