Delhi Court Pulls BJP MLA Karnail Singh For 'Exaggerated' Claims About Recoveries From AAP's Satyendar Jain During ED Raid

A Delhi Court on Tuesday took cognizance of a criminal defamation case filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain against BJP MLA Karnail Singh.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Courts directed issuance of process against Singh under Section 227 of BNSS.

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.

The Court said that if Singh wanted to caution the media to verify each statement before publishing, he ought to make statement with same caution.

The judge observed that a person cannot just make statement against character or conduct of any person and put the task upon the media to verify the same.

“If such can be a defence, then defamation would only exist in penal statute. Any person would make statement whatsoever be the context and escape the consequences by putting the condition that the listeners must verify before believing him. This is even more crucial when public figures are involved,” the Court said.

It added that both Jain and Singh are politicians as well as public figures and thus ought to have cautioned oneself to verify before imputing any allegations against the other.

The Court noted that the documents referred by Singh in his defence were from ED's post on social media platform and various news following the raids in 2022.

It further noted that the ED's post itself said that 133 coins weighed 1.80 KG in total and that news report clarified that in none of the post by the ED the source from where they were recovered was mentioned.

“One of the reports even shows that ED made no statement that recoveries were made from the house of the complainant. If this Court is to read the document filed by the proposed accused any further, the arguments can be easily countered, however this Court would reserve the said exercise for trial. Needless to say, that little can be gained by the proposed accused while arguing at this stage of cognizance,” the Court said.

Judge Dalal also said that the statements made by Singh were specifically aimed at Jain's personal character, and found no backing from any information available in public domain.

“The complainant exhibited copy of panchanama Ex.CW1/3, prepared by ED while it conducted search at his residence, and there was no recovery of cash, gold or property documents as alleged by the proposed accused. The information was thus either concocted by the proposed accused or deliberately exaggerated as he was contesting against the complainant from the same constituency,” the Court said.

It added that Singh was contesting as an opposition to the complainant from same constituency and hence the statements ought to have been made with a higher degree of care and caution.

The Court observed that Singh made statement to the media persons and then asked them to exercise caution before publishing the same but he himself did not bother to check his facts before giving the interview.

“The facts stated by him in the complaint, are not backed by any ED statement, press release or information in public domain. It appears the proposed accused made statement with his own facts and figures, wherein the mental element of proposed accused shall be subject matter of trial, as also if same is covered under any exception to criminal defamation under law,” the Court said. 

Click here to read order