New Delhi [India], October 29 : Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday dismissed revision petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Karnail Singh challenging the order taking cognizance of a defamation complaint filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain.
On May 29, 2026, the Court took cognizance of a defamation complaint against BJP MLA Karnail Singh. Satyender Jain had alleged that Singh made a defamatory statement during an interview on a news channel on January 19, 2025.
Special Judge Ruby Neeraj Kumar dismissed the revision petition filed by Karnail Singh after hearing the contentions of both sides.
The court had issued notice to former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain on July 7, 2026.
Advocates Siddhesh Kotwal, Manya Hasija and Rajaswi Vatsa appeared for MLA Karnail Singh. While taking cognizance, the court had observed, “There are sufficient grounds to proceed further in this matter.”
The court had said that the proposed accused, Karnail Singh, was contesting against the complainant, Jain, from the same constituency and, therefore, the statements ought to have been made with a higher degree of care and caution. It was also noted that the proposed accused made a statement to media persons and then asked them to exercise caution before publishing it.
"The proposed accused, however, 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 the public domain," ACJM Paras Dalal said in the order of May 29.
The court had observed, "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."
"From the detailed discussion above and given that the requirements of law under Section 210, 223, 227 of the BNSS are complied with. There are sufficient grounds to proceed. This Court therefore directs Issue of Process against the accused Sh. Karnail Singh under Section 227 of the BNSS," the court ordered on May 29.
The court had earlier taken cognizance of the complaint, which Karnail Singh challenged before the Sessions Court.
After hearing the revision petition, the Sessions Court on April 30 set aside the cognizance order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate’s court for a fresh order after considering the exceptions raised by Karnail Singh’s counsel.
The Sessions Court had observed that the Trial Court’s view that the applicability of statutory exceptions could be examined only at the stage of trial was not in accordance with the law. It said the issue raised by the revisionist went to the root of the matter and directly affected the legality of the order issuing process.
"The 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," Special Judge Jitendra Singh had said.
"This Court has consciously refrained from examining the other grounds on merits. The impugned order is deficient inasmuch as no finding has been returned on the exceptions specifically raised by the revisionist. It is for the Learned Trial Court to consider, at the threshold, whether the material on record, read in the light of the exceptions invoked, disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed," the Sessions Court had said in its order.
On January 6, 2026, the court had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to Karnail Singh. He subsequently challenged the order before the Sessions Court.
Advocate Vinod Dahiya, counsel for Karnail Singh, had submitted that the allegations against Jain were based on a press release issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and media reports.
It was further submitted that, as a candidate in the Assembly elections, Karnail Singh had a duty to inform the public about his opponent, who was also a former minister.
Former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain filed a defamation complaint against Karnail Singh, who was then the BJP’s candidate from Shakur Basti. Jain alleged that Singh made defamatory statements during an interview on a news channel on January 19, 2025.
Jain alleged that Singh claimed the ED had recovered 37 kg of gold from his house and that he owned 1,100 acres of land.
The defamation complaint stated that the proposed accused had alleged that Jain had amassed wealth through corruption and misused money meant for public purposes.
It was further alleged that Singh falsely claimed that a huge quantity of gold had been recovered from Jain’s house and called him a “Bhoo Mafia”, adding that he would go to jail again.
The complaint also alleged that Singh defamed Jain by calling him corrupt and a fraud and made several other malicious and defamatory allegations against him.