Lawyer's Statements on Client's Instructions Not Prosecutable as Defamation

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court, in the case of JN Naresh Kumar v. Jayakaran Vasudevan and Others (2026), quashed the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a lawyer. 

•  The court held that an advocate who makes statements solely on the basis of a client's instructions cannot be held liable for defamation, and that any contrary view would be opposed to the settled law on lawyers' privilege.

What was the Background of JN Naresh Kumar v. Jayakaran Vasudevan and Others (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a matrimonial dispute in which a husband filed a civil suit seeking to declare his marriage null and void. 
• Alleging a counter-blast to his civil proceedings, the husband filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, accusing:  
  • His wife of lodging a false complaint under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act using their minor daughter. 
  • The wife's advocate (the petitioner) of actively assisting and abetting the wife in disseminating false allegations of sexual harassment against him. 
• The husband alleged that false allegations were published in leading newspapers even before the POCSO complaint was taken on file. 
• The Mahila Court, Thiruvallur subsequently dismissed the POCSO complaint after inquiry. 
• The Magistrate took the defamation complaint on file, 
• Both the wife and the lawyer separately approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the defamation proceedings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

• Nature of a Lawyer's Role:  
  • A lawyer is an advocate who speaks on behalf of another. 
  • Beyond the instructions given by the client, a lawyer has no opportunity to independently verify the truth or falsity of the facts narrated. 
• Responsibility Lies with the Client:  
  • The duty of the lawyer is only to decide whether he can properly act upon the instructions given. 
  • Whatever responsibility arises from acting on such instructions rests with the client, not with the lawyer. 
• Lawyers' Privilege — Settled Law:  
  • Holding a lawyer liable for defamation for making client-instructed statements would be contrary to the settled trend of judicial decisions defining the scope and extent of privilege conferred upon lawyers. 
• Abuse of Process:  
  • Implicating the lawyer as an accused in the defamation complaint was described by the court as "unfortunate." 
  • The complaint against the lawyer was held to be a clear abuse of process of law. 
• Relief to Wife Denied:  
  • With respect to the defamation case against the wife, the court noted that specific allegations had been made against her. 
  • Finding no ground to quash, the court dismissed her plea and directed the trial court to complete the trial within 3 months.

What is Section 356 of BNS? 

356 BNS – Defamation

Definition: 

• Making/publishing any imputation (spoken, written, signs, or visible representations) about a person that harms or intends to harm their reputation. 

Key Explanations: 

• Applies to deceased persons if hurtful to family. 
• Applies to companies/associations too. 
• Ironic or alternative statements can also count. 
• Harm means lowering moral/intellectual character, caste, profession, credit, or suggesting a loathsome physical condition. 

Exceptions (not defamation if…): 

• Truth published for public good. 
• Good faith opinion on a public servant's public conduct. 
• Good faith opinion on any person's conduct on a public question. 
• Substantially true reports of court proceedings. 
• Good faith opinion on merits of a decided court case. 
• Good faith opinion on a publicly submitted performance/work. 
• Good faith censure by a lawful authority (judge, employer, parent, teacher). 
• Good faith accusation made to a person's lawful superior. 
• Imputation made in good faith to protect one's own or another's interests. 
• Good faith caution given for the benefit of the recipient or public. 

Punishments: 

• Defaming another → simple imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both, or community service. 
• Printing/engraving defamatory matter → up to 2 years, fine, or both. 
• Selling defamatory printed material → up to 2 years, fine, or both.