On July 14, 2025, the Delhi High Court ("Court") delivered a significant judgment in Abhijit Mishra ("Mishra") v. Wipro Limited ("Wipro"), a case that may redefine how termination letters are drafted. What was once an official confidential communication between employer and employee can now trigger legal action on its own.
When a Letter Speaks Louder Than the Firing
Ordinarily, termination letters surface in litigation only when the termination itself is under challenge in a wrongful dismissal claim. Here, by contrast, it was the content of the termination letter that was attacked as defamatory, and the Court agreed. This was despite the fact that the letter had not been shared with anyone other than the employee. That leads to the central question: how did the Court find a private communication between an employer and employee defamatory?
Words Without Warrant: How Wipro's Defense Failed
At the centre of the case was Abhijit Mishra, a former Principal Consultant at Wipro, who was terminated under a clause in his employment agreement that permitted "termination without cause" by providing two months' notice or salary in lieu. Wipro complied with this, paying the notice amount. However, the language used in the termination letter that alleged "malicious conduct" and a "complete loss of trust and confidence" became the eye of the storm.
Following this, Mishra filed a civil suit against Wipro claiming that the content of the termination letter was defamatory and that these observations had damaged his professional standing. He claimed INR 2.1 crore in damages, arguing that although the termination was clegitimate the words used in the relieving letter were untrue, unjustified, and capable of seriously harming his reputation. He put on record various positive performance appraisals given by his superiors over the years.
In response, Wipro argued that a defamation claim could not be sustained since the letter had not been shared with any third party apart from Mishra himself. Interestingly, however, Wipro did not produce a single document to justify or substantiate the serious allegations made in the termination letter, particularly those regarding his alleged "malicious conduct."
To defend the claim, Wipro set out to establish (i) that the statements were true and made in good faith, and (ii) that no publication had taken place.
The Court found neither defence convincing.
First, the Court held that serious allegations about an employee's character such as "malicious conduct" or lack of integrity are inherently defamatory unless substantiated by evidence. It noted that Wipro failed to provide any inquiry reports, disciplinary records, or written warnings that could justify such claims. In fact, Mishra's appraisal records showed consistently positive performance, with no adverse remarks on file. The language used, therefore, was not a factual statement about contractual breach but rather a subjective and damaging imputation about the employee's ethics and conduct.
Second, the Court held that even though the letter had not been publicly disseminated, it had still been "published" in the eyes of the law. The Court relied on the doctrine of "compelled self-publication," a principle from American jurisprudence that recognises that in certain foreseeable situations, employees may be compelled to share a termination letter with prospective employers, thereby exposing themselves to reputational injury. Such a scenario, the Court held, constitutes "publication" for the purposes of a defamation claim. Wipro, as a large and sophisticated organisation, should have reasonably foreseen that the contents of its termination letter would not remain confined to internal records. Given industry practices around background checks and employment verification, the letter was likely to be disclosed during future job applications, thereby meeting the requirement of publication.
The judgment did not shy away from the fact that employers have the right to terminate employees for convenience, as Wipro had done. What it emphasised, however, was that if employers choose to insert language that casts aspersions on an employee's character or conduct, they must be prepared to back those allegations with documentary evidence.
Immediate Takeaways for Employers
The implications of this ruling are immediate and far-reaching.
Where termination is "for convenience" and no disciplinary process has been undertaken, it is important for an employer to not use any accusatory or disparaging language. In the absence of evidence, using terms that imply misconduct, dishonesty, or unreliability can make the employers vulnerable to defamation claims and potential damages. Employees who believe they have been unfairly maligned, especially those who can demonstrate that the contents of their exit letters affected future job prospects, now have a clear legal path for redress.
While this case specifically concerned a termination letter, the Court's acceptance of the "compelled self-publication" doctrine could have broader applications. Any internal document that an employee might later be required to disclose (for example, internal appraisals, handover notes, or investigation summaries) could now be scrutinised for defamatory content.
Employers would be well advised to reassess how adverse findings are recorded and communicated, particularly in documents that might reach outside the organisation, whether voluntarily or inadvertently.
In conclusion, termination is a right, but slander is not. In today's reputation-sensitive environment where records can travel beyond their original purpose, this ruling is a powerful reminder that discretion in documentation is no longer just best practice; it is an imperative.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
