Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. In the case of Miss. Kamalini Manmade (Supra) this Court in a Civil Suit for damages for libel had occasion to deal with the issue regarding the privileges conferred on the lawyers. It was held that English Common Law rule pertaining to absolute privilege enjoyed by Advocates and others to words spoken or uttered during the course of Judicial Proceedings is applicable in India to Civil Suits. In the facts of that case the Shubham CRA-179-2014 Court observed that having regard to the fact that the alleged defamatory statements were made on an occasion which was absolutely privileged, the Suit to recover damages for the slander would not be maintainable. The Court, however, distinguished the criminal prosecution and referred to case of Tulsidas Karani (supra). The said decision is not applicable in the present case as the Respondent No.2 did not claim any absolute privilege. The learned Counsel for the applicant also relied upon the decision in the case of M.Y. Shareef (Supra), whilst dealing with a case against the contempt of advocates held that there was considerable misconception amongst certain sections of the bar when an advocate was acting in accordance with instructions of his clients he was discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or pleading which contains matter scandalizing the Court. It was further held that such a mis- conception was to be rooted out with clear and emphatic pronouncement and it should widely be made known that Counsel who signs applications or pleadings containing matters scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefore are themselves guilty of contempt of Court. In the light of the observations in the said decision, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that an advocate cannot get away with signing and filing pleadings which contain matters Shubham CRA-179-2014 scandalizing the Court or containing obviously defamatory allegations against persons by contending that he did so on the instructions of his client. The said decision was delivered in a different context and is not applicable in the present case. The appeal was arising out of contempt proceedings against two senior members of the Nagpur bar and one of their client. An application for transfer of the case from one Bench to another Bench of the High Court was made on the ground that the observations and references with the Supreme Court by the judges created a bona fide belief in the applicants mind that they are prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and indicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. The references to the Supreme Court were absolutely unnecessary and left no doubt in the applicants mind that he would not receive justice at the hands of the Hon'ble Judges. The said application was signed by the Applicant as well as the two appellants as a Counsel for the applicant. The said application was rejected in due course. The Court thereafter issued notice to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt for scandalizing the Court with a view to perverting the due course of justice by making statements in the transfer application impeaching the impartiality of the Judges. In the aforesaid circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. It was also observed that it is the duty of the advocate to advise his client for Shubham CRA-179-2014 refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications. It was also observed that when the fact is recognized that the members of the Bar have not fully realized the implications of their signing such applications and are firmly under the belief that their conduct in doing so is in accordance with professional ethics, it has to be held that the act of the said two appellants was done under a mistaken view of their rights and duties, and in such cases even a qualified apology may well be considered by a Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions that the advocate acts as an agent on behalf of his clients, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Gupta (Supra) the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case the Court was dealing with an issue in relation to the payment of rent of tenant to the landlord. The advocate had sent the notice on behalf of his client (landlord) and the tenant was in dilemma as to whom the rent is to be paid and forwarded the rent to the advocate in pursuant to receipt of the notice. In these circumstances the landlord contended that there was no payment of rent from the tenant and the rent which has been forwarded to the advocate does not qualify the legal requirement. In these circumstances the Court has observed that the advocate had forwarded a notice and thereby obviously acted as an agent on behalf of his clients. In the case of Thangavelu Chettiar (Supra) the Shubham CRA-179-2014 Madras High Court has held that the defamatory material was contained in a plaint filed in Court and filing of such plaint amounted to publication. Learned counsel submitted that even in the present case, it is not in dispute that the Revocation Petition was filed by the Respondent No. 2, who has not only drafted the defamatory material but has published the same. The Respondent No. 2 is not only the maker of the defamatory material but even the publisher of the same and can be proceeded against in a criminal prosecution for defamation. In the said decision the Petitioner was convicted under Section 500 of I.P.C. for describing the complainant as concubine of PW 2. The Petitioner had adverted to Exception 9 to Section 499 of I.P.C. The said plea was not raised before trial Court and thus, it was observed that in the absence of plea it is open to the Court to presume the absence of such circumstances. The Court observed that the evidence on record could not establish the plea of good faith to invoke the benefit of exception 9. It was observed that their can be no doubt that the Petitioner therein has unnecessarily made a defamation in a Suit for recovery of money and it shows lack of good faith. Similarly, on the point of the publication the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of M.K. Prabhakaran (Supra), a petition for quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 500 of I.P.C. was dismissed and it was observed that, once a statement has been filed in Shubham CRA-179-2014 a Court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under Exception 9 to Section 499 of I.P.C. The statements in the revocation petition were made by the Petitioners therein and the Respondent No. 2 had acted as an advocate. In the light of observations made herein above, it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 2 is responsible for publication of the alleged defamatory statements when he is not the author of the said imputations.