Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manoharrao Gangakishan Arlikar and Manoj Manoharrao Arlikar, both advocates, challenged an order dated 20 June 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli, in SCC No. 588 of 2005, issuing process against them under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation. The allegations arose from a written statement filed by the petitioners on behalf of their clients (original accused nos. 3 to 6) in a civil suit, which allegedly contained defamatory words against the respondent no. 2, Chandraprakash Bhagwanrao Kulkarni. The petitioners contended that they merely drafted the pleadings based on instructions from their clients, and the written statement was duly verified by the clients. The High Court, after hearing the petitioners and the State, noted that prima facie, proceedings under Section 500 IPC could not be initiated against counsel who draft pleadings as per client instructions and which are verified by the client. The court observed that the advocates are not the authors of the defamatory content and are protected by legal professional privilege. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order issuing process against the petitioners, and set aside the proceedings in SCC No. 588 of 2005 to the extent of the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 500 IPC - Prosecution of Advocates - Advocates cannot be prosecuted for defamation under Section 500 IPC for drafting pleadings based on client instructions and verified by the client, as they are not the authors of the defamatory content and are protected by legal professional privilege. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code can be initiated against advocates who have drafted pleadings as per the instructions of their client and which are duly verified by the client.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.06.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli, in SCC No. 588 of 2005 issuing process against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in SCC No. 588 of 2005 are quashed to the extent of the petitioners. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Advocates cannot be prosecuted for defamation under Section 500 IPC for drafting pleadings based on client instructions
- verified by client
- as they are not the authors of the defamatory content
- legal professional privilege protects advocates from such prosecution.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 34
Criminal Writ Petition No. 438 of 2006
Shri A G Godhamgaonkar for Petitioners, Shri S.G. Karlekar APP for Respondent 1
Manoharrao s/o Gangakishan Arlikar and Manoj s/o Manoharrao Arlikar
The State of Maharashtra and Chandraprakash s/o Bhagwanrao Kulkarni
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the issuance of process under Section 500 IPC against advocates for alleged defamatory statements in a written statement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 20.06.2006 issuing process against them under Section 500 IPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, who are advocates, were aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli, issuing process against them for defamation based on statements made in a written statement filed on behalf of their clients.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli, issued process against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC on 20.06.2006 in SCC No. 588/2005. The High Court granted interim stay of that order on 19.07.2006, which was confirmed on 28.11.2006.
Issues
Whether advocates can be prosecuted under Section 500 IPC for drafting pleadings based on client instructions and verified by the client.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they merely drafted the written statement as per instructions of their clients and the same was verified by the clients, hence they cannot be held liable for defamation.
Respondent No. 2 (complainant) was absent and did not make submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
Advocates cannot be prosecuted under Section 500 IPC for defamation for drafting pleadings based on client instructions and verified by the client, as they are not the authors of the defamatory content and are protected by legal professional privilege.
Judgment Excerpts
At least prima facie, I do not find that proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code could be initiated against Counsel who have drafted pleadings as per the instructions of their client and which is duly verified by the client.
Procedural History
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli, issued process against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC on 20.06.2006 in SCC No. 588/2005. The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 438 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court, which granted interim stay on 19.07.2006. On 28.11.2006, the High Court confirmed the interim relief. The matter was finally heard on 17.06.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 500
