Noting that hurt feelings and damaged ego are not defamation, the Patna High Court has dismissed a defamation case filed by an advocate against officials of the State Bank of India for removing him from their panel and held that a decision to end a professional engagement is not, by itself, defamation.Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya was hearing a plea filed by the officials of the State Bank of India challenging an order of the trial court, which rejected their application for dismissing a suit filed by the man who claimed that the bank had defamed him when it removed him from its panel.“A person is defamed not because he suffers a loss of standing or livelihood, but because another makes or publishes an imputation about him to a third person, in circumstances which the law does not excuse. A client, including a bank, who ends a professional engagement or removes an advocate from a panel exercises a legal right and, without more, makes no imputation and publishes nothing,” the October 27 order read.Observing that the man had also referred to his rights as an advocate, the court said that there was no provision which “creates a right to be engaged by a particular client, and neither places any litigant or institution under an obligation to brief, retain or continue to retain a particular advocate. The right to practice is a right to appear when engaged; it is not a right to be engaged.”Also read | Called Nepali, denied passport, Himachal Pradesh High Court comes to woman’s aidThe court further said that while it had no doubt that the loss of a panel engagement held for about 35 years was a matter of distress to an advocate, “but hurt feelings and damaged ego are not defamation”. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya held that a bank, who ends a professional engagement or removes an advocate from a panel is exercising a legal right.In the trial court, the man had claimed that he was an empanelled advocate of the State Bank of India for the Jamui Civil Court from 1983 to 2018. The man alleged that a title deed on which he had submitted a title investigation report was re-examined by another panel advocate, who stated that the document was not genuine and, because of this opinion, the man was removed from the panel, which lowered his “prestige, dignity and reputation”, causing him financial loss and mental agony.According to the order, the man had filed a criminal case for defamation which was dismissed by the trial court. Challenging the decision, the man then filed a plea which was allowed on February 24, 2020. The order was challenged by the bank in the high court, that case was still pending.Story continues below this adThe man then filed a civil case for defamation against the bank, which then retorted with an application to dismiss the case. The trial court rejected the application because the bank had not clearly stated that under which law the case was barred. Being aggrieved by the trial court’s order, the bank approached the high court.‘Litigant must be free’Senior Advocate Chitranjan Sinha and Advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh appearing for the bank argued that removing an advocate from the panel was neither a crime nor does it harm the reputation of any advocate. The counsel submitted that advocates of the state, the central government and corporations were changed from time to time, from the court below up to the Supreme Court, without any defamation case being filed against them.Also read | Man claims CIBIL score damage over credit card dues, bank ordered to pay Rs 60,000The counsel contended that the man was removed from panel on February 28, 2019, which was about a year after the report of the other advocate and that it was not the case that he was de-paneled because of the report. The counsel stated that a litigant must be free to change his advocate, and when a client did not wish to continue with a particular advocate, it was a professional requirement that the advocate should return the case.Advocate Pankaj Kumar Sinha appearing for the man argued that the the letter sent by the bank on December 7, 2018, had described him as a fraud because of a title verification report of 2014, when that report was correct and was found to be genuine by the police. The counsel stated that the bank had no authority to seek an explanation from a panel lawyer, as they could only remove him. The counsel also submitted that the letter was circulated to the court about two and a half months before the letter of removal was issued.Story continues below this ad‘Professional engagement’The high court stated that the law of defamation protected a person’s reputation against false and harmful things published to others, but it did not compensate for every “reputational or financial consequence” that was a result of a lawful act, such as the termination of a contract or of a professional engagement. The court said that the act of ending a relationship was not, by itself, a statement about the person with whom the relationship is ended.The bench noted that removal for a panel was not defamation but “a decision to discontinue a professional engagement” and that it said nothing about the man. The court observed that the bank might decide to discontinue an advocate, and that the Advocates Act, which gave the man the right to appear before the court when engaged as an advocate, did not guarantee his engagement itself.While allowing the plea of the bank and dismissing the suit, the court held that, “loss of the panel engagement and the resulting financial loss flow from the removal itself, and the law of defamation does not compensate for that.”