The Patna High Court has held that removing an advocate from a bank's panel does not, by itself, amount to defamation, as a client has the legal right to discontinue a professional engagement without providing reasons.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya passed the order while allowing a civil revision petition filed by officials of the State Bank of India (SBI). The Court rejected a ₹25 lakh defamation suit instituted by advocate Mantosh Prasad Sinha, holding that the plaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of defamation.
Background
The dispute arose from the removal of advocate Mantosh Prasad Sinha from the State Bank of India's panel for the Jamui Civil Court. According to his plaint, he had served as the bank's panel advocate from 1983 to 2018. A title deed on which he had submitted an investigation report was subsequently re-examined by another panel advocate, Purnendu Kumar Singh, who reportedly opined that the document was not genuine.
Sinha alleged that he was de-panelled on the basis of this assessment, damaging his professional reputation and causing financial loss and mental distress. He filed a defamation suit seeking ₹25 lakh in damages against three SBI officials.
The bank officials sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). However, the Sub-Judge-III, Jamui, rejected their application on October 17, 2024, prompting them to approach the High Court.
Justice Malviya examined whether the allegations in the plaint disclosed the essential ingredients of defamation. The Court explained that defamation requires a harmful imputation concerning a person and its communication to someone other than that person.
The Court observed that Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, recognise an advocate's right to practise law but do not create an entitlement to be retained by a particular client.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, the Court emphasised the client's freedom to change an advocate. It held:
"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 also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks' Association (2026), which recognised the contractual nature of the relationship between banks and their panel advocates. It clarified that while a bank can discontinue an advocate's engagement, a separate public declaration about the advocate's competence or character raises a different issue.
The judgment further explained:
"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."
The Court found that the plaint did not clearly identify who had allegedly circulated the defamatory statements, to whom they were communicated, or when the alleged publication took place. General expressions such as "spread like anything" and "murmuring everywhere" were insufficient to establish publication to a third person.
The Court also clarified that the bank's letter dated December 7, 2018, allegedly describing Sinha as a fraud, was not pleaded as the foundation of the defamation claim. It therefore expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the disputed deed or the competing title reports.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the trial court's October 17, 2024 order and rejected the plaint in Title (Defamation) Suit No. 137 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
The Court made no order as to costs.
