Back
Sukhbir Badal Can Be for Defamation of Organisation:
In a significant ruling on the law of criminal defamation, the dismissed a petition by former Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, the chief spokesperson of the religious organisation . Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, presiding over the matter, held that a person closely associated with an organisation can be an "" under even if the defamatory imputation is primarily directed at the organisation itself.
The Roots of the Dispute: Linking AKJ to BKI
The case has its origins in the 2017 Punjab Assembly election campaign. On
, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal visited Rajinder Pal Singh's residence, a visit that was widely reported. In response, Badal, then Deputy Chief Minister, made statements to the press and at political rallies that were published in several newspapers. The statements alleged that the AKJ was the
"political front of
"
, the largest terrorist organisation, and that Kejriwal had
"breakfast with the spokesperson RP Singh of Akhand Kirtani Jatha"
.
Rajinder Pal Singh, who described himself as a baptised Sikh and the chief spokesperson of AKJ, filed a criminal defamation complaint before the , in , alleging that these remarks had severely harmed his reputation. He claimed that friends and acquaintances began avoiding him, with one friend, Sanjeev Mittal, taunting him about being linked to terrorism. The Magistrate, after preliminary evidence, summoned Badal under Sections 500 and 501 on .
Badal's Challenge: The Core Legal Questions
Badal challenged the complaint and summoning order before the High Court under , raising several crucial legal issues:
-
Who qualifies as an ""? Badal argued that the defamatory statements referred only to the AKJ as an organisation, and since the complainant was not personally defamed, he lacked the standing to file the complaint under . He contended that the AKJ was an indeterminate group and that the complainant had no authorisation from the organisation to institute the case.
-
Did the imputations constitute defamation at all? Badal's counsel maintained that the statements were general political remarks and did not even amount to defamation.
-
Was the court's properly invoked? Badal argued that the arose in Mohali, where the complainant's friend Sanjeev Mittal confronted him, not in Chandigarh.
High Court's Reasoning: Spokesperson Can Feel the Pinch
Justice Dahiya systematically rejected each of Badal's arguments, relying on established precedent. On the issue of who can be an "", the Court drew heavily from the 's decision in
, which held that
"the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each case."
The High Court applied this principle directly:
"If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of it."
Similarly, the Court observed that by linking the AKJ—an organisation the complainant serves as spokesperson—to a terrorist outfit like BKI, the imputation directly affects his reputation. The Court noted that
"terrorism is an unlawful activity, associated with violence and extremism unacceptable in a civilised society"
and that such an accusation would
"in all probability, harm such a person's reputation and paint him in a bad light amongst friends and the public at large."
On the argument that the AKJ was not an identifiable group, the Court pointed out that Badal himself had referred to it as an organisation with a named spokesperson. "Existence of the AKJ as an identifiable body stands established as the petitioner himself has mentioned it as an organisation having the complainant as its spokesperson," the judgment read, adding that the nature and composition of the AKJ could be determined during trial.
Jurisdiction: Publication in Chandigarh Creates Local Cause
Regarding , the Court rejected the argument that the complaint could only be filed in Mohali. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in
, the Court held that
"the offence of defamation is complete in the area where imputation is published."
Since the three newspapers—
The Hindustan Times
,
The Punjabi Tribune
, and
Dainik Bhaskar
—had wide circulation in Chandigarh, and the complainant's friend Sanjeev Mittal (who confronted him) resided there, the arose within the Magistrate's jurisdiction.
The Final Word: No Quashing, Trial to Proceed
The High Court dismissed the petition in its entirety, allowing the criminal defamation proceedings to continue before the trial court. Justice Dahiya clarified that the observations in the judgment were only for the purpose of deciding the and would not influence the trial on its merits.
The case did not end there. Badal challenged the High Court's order before the , but in , a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed his , effectively upholding the High Court's decision. During the hearing, , appearing for Badal, argued that the journalists who reported the statements had not been examined. However, the noted that the material on record—newspaper reports attributing the statements to Badal—sufficiently indicated that he had referred to Singh as the AKJ's spokesperson.
Key Observations from the High Court Judgment
"The collocation of the words 'by some persons aggrieved' definitely indicates that the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself."
"If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of it."
"In case the association a person is part of has been publicly termed as an organisation directly linked to terrorists, he/she has a reason to feel hurt about it as terrorism is an unlawful activity…"
"The offence of defamation by its very nature is not confined to a particular place as it is not in the form of an incident that has happened."
The decision reinforces the principle that the law of defamation does not require the complainant to be named personally; a representative or member of a defamed group can maintain a complaint if the imputation implicates them by association. The judgment also clarifies that in defamation cases extends to any place where the imputation is published and causes harm.
