Delhi Court Sets Aside Order Summoning BJP MLA Karnail Singh In Defamation Case By AAP's Satyendar Jain
A Delhi Court on Thursday set aside a magistrate's order taking cognizance and summoning BJP MLA Karnail Singh in a criminal defamation case filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts allowed Singh's challenge and clarified that no observations were made on merits of the case.
The judge has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to consider the applicability of the exceptions to the alleged statements, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Observing that the Trial Court's view that the applicability of statutory exceptions can be examined only at the stage of trial is not in accordance with law, the Court said:
“The issue raised by the revisionist goes to the root of the matter and directly affects the legality of the order issuing process. The Ld. Trial Court was required to undertake a limited examination of the alleged statements, the material on record, and the exceptions pleaded, to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed.”
Both Jain and Singh contested the Delhi Assembly Polls, 2025, from the Shakur Basti Constituency. Singh won the polls and defeated Jain by 20,998 votes.
Jain alleged that during campaigning, Singh made defamatory statements against him saying that during an ED raid conducted in 2022, 37 Kgs of Gold and property over 1100 acres was found at his premises. As per the complaint, in an interview, Karnail Singh further stated that Jain was involved in corrupt practices.
In his defence, Singh said that he only made statements which were present in public domain and released in the press by the ED and that they were made with a caution to the media houses to verify them before publishing.
While taking cognizance of the complaint, the Court said that at the stage of taking cognizance and issue of notice to the accused, no court can decide upon the mental element of the proposed accused in making any statement.
It said that the defense of the accused based on the exception to criminal defamation can only be decided once the complainant has proved his case and then accused can put forth his defense.
Setting aside the order, the judge today said that at the stage of summoning, the Court is not required to assess whether a prima facie case is made out, as is required at the stage of framing of charge.
It said that the scrutiny at such a stage is of a lesser degree, confined to a limited examination of the material on record, and the Court is only required to see whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused.
Further, the Court observed that where the statement concerns conduct of a public servant or a matter of public concern, a degree of caution is required before issuing process.
“Public acts are open to comment and criticism, and the Court must examine whether the complaint discloses material sufficient to rule out, even prima facie, the protection of the statutory exceptions,” the Court said.
“The proper course would have been to consider the statements in their entirety, the context in which they were made, the status of the complainant, and the nature of the issue involved, along with the exceptions pleaded. If, on such limited scrutiny, the statements appeared to be defamatory and not even prima facie protected, process could have been issued,” it added.
The Court said if the alleged defamatory statements fall within any of the exceptions provided under Section 356 of the BNS on the basis of the pre-summoning evidence, the Trial Court would be justified in declining to proceed further.