The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Abhijit Mishra v. Wipro Limited [CS(OS) 31/2021], delivered on 14 July 2025, deals with the interplay between contractual termination rights in private employment and the tort of civil defamation. The case arose from a termination letter issued by Wipro, the employer, containing adverse and stigmatic remarks. The Court examined key legal principles under the law of defamation, including the common law test for civil defamation, and invoked the doctrine of compelled self-publication to assess whether a confidential document could still amount to a defamatory publication. It also analyzed the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Section 14(d), to determine the enforceability of personal service contracts and reiterated that remedies for wrongful termination in such cases are limited to damages and not reinstatement.

Brief Facts
The plaintiff, Abhijit Mishra, was employed as a Principal Consultant with Wipro Limited (“Wipro”) from 14 March 2018 until his termination on 5 June 2020, governed by a contract that allowed either party to terminate employment by notice (Clause 10 of contract titled “Notice Period”). The termination letter issued by Wipro included remarks such as “malicious conduct” and “complete loss of trust,” prompting the plaintiff to file a civil suit claiming Rs 2.10 crores in damages for defamation and violation of his right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also sought a fresh discharge letter and a public apology.

The plaintiff contended that the statements were false, defamatory, and not supported by any inquiry or factual findings. Wipro, in its defense, claimed that the termination was as per the employment contract and the remarks were justified by the plaintiff’s conduct, asserting that no third-party publication occurred.

Issues for Adjudication
The following issues were framed by the Court:

1. Whether the service (employment) of the plaintiff was wrongly terminated by the defendant in violation of the employment contract?
2. Whether the statement in the impugned termination letter as issued by the defendant, has resulted in the defamation of the plaintiff?
3. In the event, issue No.1 being decided in favour of the plaintiff whether defendant's action of termination of the plaintiff's services has caused damage to the plaintiff?

Held

1. On Issue 1 & 3 (Termination and Damage):
   The Court held that the employment contract was determinable in nature under Clause 10, which permitted termination without assigning reasons. Relying on precedents (e.g., Indian Oil Corp v. Amritsar Gas Service, Gaurav Rajgaria v. Maruti Suzuki), the Court reiterated that in private employment governed by contract, no equitable relief (like reinstatement or declaration of wrongful termination) is available. Since Wipro complied with the contractual terms (by paying two months’ salary in lieu of notice), the claim of wrongful termination and associated damages was not maintainable.
   
   Issues 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff.
    
2. On Issue 2 (Defamation):
   The Court analysed the essential elements of civil defamation: (i) false and defamatory statement; (ii) publication to a third party; (iii) identifiability of the plaintiff; and (iv) absence of a valid defence.
   
   It found that:
   • The remarks in the termination letter were demonstrably false, based on unsubstantiated assertions.
   • The plaintiff had consistently positive performance reviews.
   • The defendant failed to prove any inquiry, misconduct, or justification for the adverse language used.
   • Though the letter was sent only to the plaintiff, the Court invoked the doctrine of “compelled self-publication”, holding Wipro liable for the foreseeable consequence of the plaintiff having to disclose the letter to future employers. This satisfied the element of “publication.”

Consequently, the Court held that the impugned statements were defamatory and had caused injury to the plaintiff’s professional reputation.
Issue 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Judgment
The Delhi High Court granted two-fold relief to the plaintiff, Abhijit Mishra:

• Monetary Damages: Wipro was directed to pay Rs 2,00,000 to the plaintiff as general compensatory damages for defamation, addressing the reputational harm, emotional trauma, and professional hardship caused by the stigmatic language in the termination letter.
• Rectification: The Court ordered Wipro to issue a fresh termination letter, expunging the observations impugning the plaintiff’s character and professional integrity.

MHCO Comment
This judgment marks a significant step in evolving the jurisprudence on employer liability in private employment, particularly where termination letters contain adverse, unsubstantiated remarks. The Delhi High Court's application of the doctrine of compelled self-publication aligns with modern tort principles, balancing contractual rights with constitutional values like dignity and reputation under Article 21. While upholding the determinable nature of private employment contracts, the Court has drawn a clear line where defamatory content, even within internal communication, may trigger tort liability if its disclosure is reasonably foreseeable.

 

This update was released on 18 Jul 2025.

The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice. Please contact us directly on +91 22 40565252 or legalupdates@mhcolaw.com for any assistance.

Legal Update Team
MANSUKHLAL HIRALAL & COMPANY
Advocates, Solicitors and Notaries
T: +91 22 40565252
Mumbai Office: Surya Mahal, 2nd Floor, 5, Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023, India
Delhi Office: Block C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi - 110 014, India
www.mhcolaw.com

"Noted lawyer in the Real Estate practitioner from India" - Chambers & Partners

Please consider the environment before printing this email

The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. This communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken relying on the contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, or if you or your employer does not consent to email messages of this kind, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.