Supreme Court Affirms Absolute Privilege for Lawyers’ Statements, Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Advocate

By Legal Wires 6 Minutes Read

n a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the doctrine of absolute privilege for lawyers, upholding the dismissal of a defamation suit filed against Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa. The lawsuit, filed by businessman Pankaj Oswal, was in response to statements made by Pahwa during a criminal hearing in the Patiala House Courts, Delhi, on the instructions of his client’s counsel. Oswal contended that the remarks were defamatory and harmed his reputation, but the Supreme Court confirmed that lawyers are protected from such claims when making statements during judicial proceedings, reinforcing the public policy principle that justice must be administered without fear of defamation claims.

Factual Background

• Vikas Pahwa, a senior advocate, represented the complainant, Pankaj Oswal’s mother, during a criminal revision hearing. Following instructions, Pahwa informed the court that mediation was not feasible due to Oswal’s use of “unparliamentary language” and abusive behavior towards his mother during previous mediation sessions.
• This statement, made during judicial proceedings, prompted Oswal to file a defamation suit, alleging that the remarks were false and damaged his reputation.
• Oswal sought legal action, contending that Pahwa’s statement amounted to defamation.

Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court

• The defamation suit was initially dismissed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which allows for the rejection of a suit if it does not disclose a valid cause of action.
• The Court noted that Pahwa’s statement was made during judicial proceedings and was protected under the doctrine of absolute privilege, which safeguards lawyers from defamation suits for statements made in court.
• Oswal then appealed the Single Judge’s ruling before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, asserting that Pahwa’s statement infringed on his right to reputation, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

Oswal’s Arguments

• Pankaj Oswal argued that the privilege granted to lawyers should not be absolute, especially when a statement violates a person’s right to reputation, which is considered part of the right to life under Article 21.
• His legal team contended that while lawyers have certain privileges during court proceedings, these privileges are conditional and not absolute, particularly in cases where statements are defamatory.
• Oswal also argued that the defamation suit should not have been dismissed prematurely, emphasizing that it deserved a full hearing on the merits of the case.

Pahwa’s Defense

• Vikas Pahwa’s defense team countered by emphasizing that statements made by lawyers during judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege, a doctrine that allows legal professionals to speak freely in court without fear of defamation claims. This doctrine, rooted in public policy, ensures that the administration of justice is not obstructed by concerns over defamation.
• Pahwa’s lawyers further argued that the privilege extends beyond lawyers, covering judges, witnesses, and all other participants in judicial proceedings, ensuring a fair and uninhibited legal process.
• Additionally, Pahwa’s defense stressed that the statement in question was made on the explicit instructions of the counsel-on-record, which further negated any claims of malice.
• The defense team also argued that Oswal’s defamation suit was frivolous and intended to disrupt the ongoing legal representation of Oswal’s mother by Pahwa.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the Delhi High Court’sruling, reaffirming that the doctrine of absolute privilege applies to lawyers for statements made during judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that this privilege is essential for ensuring that legal professionals can act freely in their professional capacity without fear of defamation claims.
• The Court observed that Pahwa’s statement was made on client instructions and within the context of a judicial proceeding, which placed it squarely under the protection of absolute privilege. This principle ensures that lawyers, judges, and witnesses are free to speak openly and without fear of defamation suits in the course of justice.
• The Supreme Court also dismissed Oswal’s argument that lawyers should not have absolute immunity from defamation claims, affirming that the protection granted by absolute privilege is essential for the unimpeded functioning of the justice system.

Case title: Pankaj Oswal v. Vikas Pahwa, Diary No. 19381-2024

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires