Defamation — Slander and Libel — Pleadings
Order VI Rules 2 & 4 CPC; Order VII Rule 11 CPC
In a suit for defamation, the plaint must specifically plead the exact slanderous or libellous words, the persons to whom they were published, and the time and place of publication — Absence of such pleadings renders the plaint vague and liable to rejection for want of cause of action.
[Paras 4, 9–12]
Defamation — Evidence cannot substitute pleadings
Cause of action for defamation must be disclosed in the plaint itself — Plaint cannot be saved by proposing to disclose defamatory statements later through evidence or witnesses.
[Paras 12, 29]
Defamation — Corporate plaintiff — Separate legal personality
A company, being a juristic person distinct from its director, cannot claim defamation merely because allegations are made against its director — No cause of action arises to the company unless specific defamatory statements concerning it are pleaded.
[Para 13]
Employer–Employee Relationship — Disclosure of reasons for termination
Qualified privilege
Communication by an employer to co-employees or prospective employers regarding reasons for termination of an employee, when made bona fide and in discharge of duty, is protected by qualified privilege and does not constitute defamation.
[Paras 18–24, 26–29]
Defamation — Reference checks by former employer
Honest disclosure by a former employer to a prospective employer regarding the antecedents and reasons for termination of an employee is permissible and in public interest — Such communication is privileged unless actuated by malice.
[Paras 19–27]
Defamation — Termination for misconduct — Finality
Where termination for misconduct has attained finality and has not been challenged, communication of such fact cannot be treated as defamatory.
[Paras 20–21, 26]
Limitation — Defamation and breach of contract
Articles 75, 76, 55 & 58, Limitation Act, 1963
Suit for compensation for libel or slander must be filed within one year from publication — Claims for breach of contract and declaration must be filed within three years — Suit filed beyond limitation is barred and not maintainable.
[Paras 30–31]
Interrogatories — Fishing enquiry
Order XI CPC
Interrogatories cannot be used to conduct a roving or fishing enquiry to discover a cause of action not pleaded in the plaint.
[Paras 4–8]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Mandatory Pleadings in Defamation Suits
The Court reiterates settled law that defamation actions demand strict pleadings. The defamatory words themselves are material facts and must be pleaded with specificity. Without such pleading, the defendant has no opportunity to answer the case, and no issue can arise for trial (Paras 4–12).
B. Evidence vs. Pleadings
The judgment strongly affirms that evidence cannot cure defective pleadings. A plaintiff cannot omit defamatory words from the plaint and attempt to introduce them through witness testimony or documents later (Paras 12, 29).
C. Qualified Privilege in Employment Context
A substantial portion of the judgment is devoted to the doctrine of qualified privilege. The Court holds that:
-
Employers owe a duty to other employees and to prospective employers to disclose reasons for termination.
-
Such disclosure, if honest and bona fide, is privileged.
-
Privilege is defeated only by proof of malice (Paras 18–24).
D. Public Policy Considerations
The Court recognises that reference checks and internal disclosures are essential for professional and commercial integrity. Treating such communications as defamatory would be contrary to public interest and freedom of speech (Paras 19–21).
E. Corporate Plaintiff and Individual Defamation
The Court draws a clear line between an individual and a company. Even if a director is allegedly defamed, the company does not automatically acquire a cause of action (Para 13).
F. Limitation as an Independent Bar
Apart from lack of cause of action, the Court independently holds the suit to be time-barred, both for defamation (one year) and for breach of contract / declaration (three years) (Paras 30–31).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS PER RECORD)
-
Plaintiff No.2 was a senior employee terminated for misconduct after disciplinary proceedings (Paras 1, 16).
-
Termination order was not challenged and attained finality (Para 20).
-
Alleged defamation was based on vague assertions that defendants made negative statements in the industry (Paras 1(xi), 9).
-
No defamatory words, publication details, or named recipients were pleaded (Paras 9–12).
-
Suit was instituted in January 2013, long after the alleged publications in 2009–2011 (Paras 30–31).
IV. FINAL HOLDING / RESULT
-
Plaint, insofar as it related to defamation, did not disclose any cause of action.
-
Claims were barred by limitation.
-
Employer communications were held to be privileged.
-
Suit and counter-claim both dismissed.
-
Defendants bound by prior statement not to defame.
[Paras 29–34]
Ratio (Concise)
In defamation suits arising from employment termination, absence of specific pleadings of defamatory words is fatal; bona fide disclosures by an employer to co-employees or prospective employers are protected by qualified privilege, and stale claims are barred by limitation.
