Lawyer Can't Be Prosecuted For Defamation For Statements Made On Instructions Of Client: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently held that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted for the offence of defamation, merely for statements made by him upon a client's instructions.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that a lawyer only speaks on behalf of his client and has no opportunity to verify the truthfulness of the facts narrated by the client. The court added that any responsibility for such a statement should be on the client and not the advocate, and any contrary view would be against the settled law on lawyers' privilege.
“A lawyer is an advocate, who speaks on behalf of another. Naturally beyond the instructions given by the client, a lawyer has no opportunity to verify the truth or falsity of the facts narrated by the client. Therefore, no lawyer can be prosecuted for defamation in respect of any statements made on the basis of instruction given by the client. It is the duty of the lawyer to decide whether he can properly act upon such instructions, and whatever responsibility may arise from acting upon those instructions would rest with the client and not with the lawyer. Any contrary view would be opposed to the settled trend of judicial decisions defining the scope and extent of the privilege conferred upon a lawyer,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a lawyer seeking to quash a criminal case against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur for offences under Section 500 and Section 109 of IPC. The Magistrate had taken the case on file based on a private complaint filed by a husband alleging that his wife and her lawyer (the petitioner) had disseminated false allegations of sexual harassment against him as a counter blast to a petition filed by him. The wife had also approached the High Court seeking to quash the defamation case before the Magistrate.
The husband had submitted that he had filed a suit against the wife seeking to declare that his marriage with her was forced and to declare it as null and void. He alleged that to counter this civil proceeding, the wife, with the connivance and instigation of the advocate had lodged a complaint under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act using their minor daughter.
The husband submitted that even before the complaint under the POCSO Act was taken on file, the wife and the lawyer started disseminating false allegations against him, which was also published in leading newspapers. The husband also submitted that after conducting an enquiry, the complaint against him was dismissed by the Mahila Court, Thiruvallur. He thus accused the wife and the lawyer for propagating and spreading false news against him.
The court noted that the lawyer was roped in the complaint alleging that he had actively assisted and abetted the wife and daughter in the alleged act of defamation. The court noted that it was unfortunate that the lawyer, who appeared on behalf of his client was implicated in the case as an accused.
Noting that a lawyer should not be made liable for defamation for making statement on behalf of the client, the court observed that the complaint against the lawyer was noting but a clear abuse of process of law.
Thus, the court quashed the defamation case against the lawyer.
With respect to the defamation case against the wife, the court noted that specific allegations had been made and there was no ground to quash the case. The court thus dismissed the wife's plea to quash the defamation case and directed the trial court to complete the trial within 3 months.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. J. Saravanan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. N. Rajkumar, Mr. R. Kalidass, Mrs. M. S. Deepika
Case Title: JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Case No: Crl.R.C.Nos.8047 of 2022 & & 20189 of 2023