Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna HC has held that depanelment of an advocate does not, by itself, constitute defamation, as discontinuing a professional engagement does not amount to making or publishing a defamatory imputation. The Court rejected a ₹25 lakh defamation suit filed by a former panel advocate of the State Bank of India (SBI) against its officials, observing that the right to practise law does not confer a right to be engaged by a particular client.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya allowed a civil revision petition filed by SBI officials challenging the Trial Court's refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The dispute arose after advocate Mantosh Prasad Sinha, who had been empanelled with SBI for the Jamui Civil Court from 1983 to 2018, was removed from the Bank's panel.

According to the plaintiff, a title deed concerning which he had submitted a title investigation report was subsequently examined by another panel advocate, Purnendu Kumar Singh, who opined that the document was not genuine. The plaintiff alleged that he was depanelled on the basis of this opinion, resulting in damage to his prestige, dignity and reputation, besides financial loss and mental agony. He consequently instituted a defamation suit seeking damages of ₹25 lakh.

The SBI officials denied the allegations and submitted that the decision to depanel the advocate had been taken by the competent authority. They sought rejection of the plaint, contending that depanelment did not constitute defamation and that no cause of action arose against them. However, the Trial Court rejected their application on October 17, 2024, prompting them to approach the High Court in revision.

Examining the matter, the High Court referred to Section 499 IPC and the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammed Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K., (2018) 1 SCC 615, concerning the essential ingredients of defamation. The Bench observed that defamation requires the making or publication of an imputation concerning a person with the requisite intention or knowledge of harming their reputation. It clarified that every event resulting in diminished professional standing or financial loss does not necessarily constitute defamation. The Court further examined Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, observing that while these provisions recognise an advocate's right to practise, they do not create an entitlement to continued engagement by a particular client.

On the distinction between depanelment and defamation, the Court observed:

“Thus, a person is defamed not because he suffers a loss of standing or livelihood, but because another makes or publishes an imputation about him, to a third person, in circumstances which the law does not excuse. A client, including a bank, who ends a professional engagement or removes an advocate from a panel exercises a legal right and, without more, makes no imputation and publishes nothing. If, in addition, a client separately makes and publishes a defamatory imputation about the advocate to third parties, liability, if any, arises from that separate act, which must itself be pleaded and proved, and not from the disengagement.”

Applying these principles, the High Court held that the plaintiff's principal grievance concerned his depanelment and its alleged financial and reputational consequences, which could not independently sustain a defamation claim.

The Bench also noted that the allegedly defamatory statement was attributed to an unnamed newly appointed lawyer of the Bank, who was not a party to the suit. The plaint did not disclose material facts connecting the SBI officials to the alleged statement. Further, the Court found the allegations concerning publication insufficiently specific, as the plaint failed to identify when, where or to whom the alleged statements had been communicated. It held:

“First, de-panelment is not defamation. It is a decision to discontinue a professional engagement. It says nothing about the plaintiff and carries no imputation within Section 499 of the IPC. The Bank may decide to discontinue an advocate, and Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, which secure the plaintiff's right to appear when engaged, do not secure his engagement. Loss of the panel engagement and the resulting financial loss flow from the removal itself, and the law of defamation does not compensate for that…”

The Court clarified that any separate grievance concerning the termination of the advocate's engagement was a distinct matter on which it expressed no opinion.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated October 17, 2024, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, thereby disposing of the defamation suit.

Appearance:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Tags: