Lawyer can't sue client for defamation for ending professional engagement: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that a lawyer cannot claim defamation merely because a client decides to discontinue their professional engagement, even if the decision results in financial loss or reputational consequences [SBI Vs Mantosh Prasad Sinha].

Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya made the observation while rejecting a ₹25 lakh defamation suit filed by an advocate against officials of the State Bank of India (SBI) after he was removed from the bank's panel.

The Court emphasised that an advocate's right to practise law does not translate into a right to be engaged or retained by a particular client.

"The right to practise is a right to appear when engaged; it is not a right to be engaged," the Court observed in its order of October 27.

It further held that a client was free to change lawyers without having to justify the decision.

"No law requires a client to give reasons for disengaging an advocate, and the exercise of that freedom, whether by withdrawing a vakalatnama, by engaging a fresh counsel or by removing an advocate from a panel, is the exercise of a legal right. It is not, of itself, an imputation upon the advocate," the Court said.

The case arose from a dispute involving advocate Mantosh Prasad Sinha, who had been on SBI's panel for the Jamui Civil Court between 1983 and 2018.

According to Sinha, he had submitted a title investigation report concerning a property document. However, another panel advocate subsequently examined the document and concluded that it was not genuine.

Sinha alleged that he was removed from the bank's panel on the basis of this subsequent opinion. He claimed that the decision damaged his professional reputation, dignity and standing, besides causing financial loss and mental agony.

He consequently instituted a defamation suit seeking ₹25 lakh in damages against SBI officials.

The bank officials sought rejection of the suit, arguing that the discontinuation of a lawyer's engagement could not constitute defamation.

A civil court in Jamui rejected the bank officials' application in October 2024, prompting them to approach the High Court.

Before the High Court, the SBI officials argued that litigants were entitled to change their advocates and that removal from a panel was neither a criminal offence nor an act that necessarily harmed an advocate's reputation.

Sinha alleged that a bank communication had described him as a 'fraud' and it was circulated to the court. He also argued that the attempt to reject his suit was intended to delay the proceedings.

After examining the dispute, the High Court distinguished between the removal of an advocate from a professional engagement and the publication of defamatory allegations about the advocate.

The High Court noted that while banks could discontinue the services of panel advocates, publicly circulating allegations about their competence or character could raise separate legal issues.

"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," the Court held.

It explained that defamation required an imputation concerning a person and its communication to another person. The mere loss of professional standing or livelihood following termination of an engagement was insufficient.

The Court also examined the advocate's allegation that news of his removal had spread through the legal community.

It found that the plaint did not identify the persons to whom allegedly defamatory statements had been communicated, when the statements were made or which bank official was responsible.

The Court observed that expressions such as "spread like anything" and "murmuring everywhere" could not substitute for specific pleadings establishing publication.

It also rejected Sinha's argument that the bank's allegedly defamatory letter could sustain the suit.

The Court acknowledged that losing a professional engagement lasting approximately 35 years could cause genuine distress but the same cannot give rise to a claim for defamation.

"Hurt feelings and damaged ego are not defamation," it observed.

The High Court further held that the trial court had failed to examine whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, as required under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it allowed the revision petition filed by the SBI officials, set aside the trial court's order and rejected the defamation plaint.

The Court clarified that it was expressing no opinion on any separate grievance concerning the termination of the advocate's engagement or the genuineness of the disputed title documents.

Senior Advocate Chitranjan Sinha assisted by advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh appeared for the SBI officials.

Advocate Pankaj Kumar Sinha represented the aggrieved lawyer.

[Read Judgment]