Employment Law Newsletter – Defamation Risk in Termination Letters — Lessons from Abhijit Mishra v. Wipro: August 2025
Termination of an employee is a process that requires utmost care from the management. Any oversight in the procedure or documentation could trigger lengthy litigation, potentially resulting in a costly settlement. The employer must follow due process, and the issue of flawless exit documents is an important step in this process. Therefore, these documents are to be thoroughly reviewed for risks before issuance. This requirement becomes immensely relevant in light of the Delhi High Court decision in Abhijit Mishra vs. Wipro Limited1 released on July 14, 2025,holding the termination letter issued by Wipro to be defamatory.
Brief Facts
In Abhijit Mishra, the terminated employee (plaintiff), previously employed as a Principal Consultant by Wipro, was terminated via the issuance of a letter that attributes the conduct of the plaintiff as “malicious” and resulting in a “complete loss of trust.” While Wipro maintained that the remarks impugned by the plaintiff are merely reflective of his conduct during the tenure of his employment and were necessitated by the circumstances culminating in his termination, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, directing the company to issue a fresh termination letter without any defamatory content and to pay two (2) lakh as compensatory damages for causing emotional distress and damaging the employee’s professional image.
Rationale Behind the Decision
The Court noted that civil defamation refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation tending to diminish another’s reputation in the estimation of right-minded members of society.
The essential constituents of civil defamation are as follows:
(i) A false statement, whether written (libel) or spoken (slander); and defamatory in nature, i.e., it must have the effect of lowering the reputation in the eyes of others (right-thinking members of the society);
(ii) Publication of such statement to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(iii) Identifiability, i.e., the statement must refer to the plaintiff either expressly or by implication
(iv) Absence of a valid defence such as justification, truth, or privilege.
The Court noted that in the ordinary course of employment transitions, individuals are often required to share prior employment documents during job applications, reference checks, or background verifications and that Wipro, as a large employer itself, would have been well aware that the remarks included in the termination letter, particularly those referring to “malicious conduct,” were likely to be disclosed by the employee to prospective employers. Such disclosure, even if initiated by the employee, was considered a natural and foreseeable consequence. In this context, the Court held that the impugned content had effectively been “published” and, given the lack of supporting evidence, amounted to defamation.
When Does a Termination Letter Turn Defamatory?
This decision puts forward an important question: Is a termination letter that establishes cause inherently defamatory and liable for compensatory damages?
A termination letter that establishes cause is not defamatory, provided the language used is factually accurate and procedurally justified.
Merely stating that an employee was terminated for cause does not, by itself, amount to defamation. However, the law draws a critical distinction between a justified assertion of cause and a speculative or exaggerated attribution of intent, character, or misconduct. Thus, employers can defend a termination letter establishing cause, if the stated reasons are demonstrably true, documented in internal records, and expressed in a legally cautious manner.
In Abhijit Mishra, the Court found that the impugned remarks were neither supported by a formal inquiry nor backed by the employment record, leading to the finding that the letter was defamatory. The termination was affected under a clause allowing termination without cause, yet the letter included stigmatising findings without any supporting process. Therefore, the judgment does not preclude employers from stating cause, but affirms that when a private employer chooses to make findings about misconduct in a termination letter, it must be preceded by an appropriate process, which usually means a domestic/workplace enquiry conducted by following principles of natural justice.
Key Considerations for Employers When Drafting Exit Documentation
(i) Ensure the Language is Factually Supported and Legally Defensible
Any attribution of misconduct, breach of trust, or wilful default must be grounded in documented internal processes, such as disciplinary proceedings, inquiries, or show cause notices. In the absence of such procedures, value-laden terminology is likely to be construed as defamatory.
(ii) Recognise the Foreseeability of Publication
Even if a termination letter is marked “confidential”, courts increasingly recognise that it may be disclosed during job applications, visa processes, or background checks. Employers must exercise anticipatory care, assuming that exit documents may be reviewed by third parties.
(iii) Avoid Generalised or Overreaching Assertions
Statements such as “complete breakdown of trust” or “acts of misconduct” are not inherently unlawful, but their inclusion, without process, proof, or proportionality, renders them susceptible to legal challenge. Blanket accusations without internal due process are viewed as attempts to circumvent formal disciplinary mechanisms.
Conclusion
Termination letters can shape reputations long after employment ends. Employers must ensure exit documentation is factually supported, procedurally fair, and cautiously worded, because careless language risks defamation claims, reputational harm, and compensation. Review exit letters through legal and HR lenses to mitigate litigation risk and protect organisational integrity and credibility.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Abhijit Mishra vs. Wipro Limited (14.07.2025 – DELHC): MANU/DE/5102/2025
About us:
LegaLogic (www.legalogic.com) is a full-service law firm with more than 50 people team. Founded in 2013, LegaLogic has been advising across industry segments. It is a go-to firm for the Corporate Commercial Matters, M&A, Intellectual Property, Employment Law, Real Estate, Dispute Resolution, Litigation, Insurance Advisory, India Entry Strategy and Private Client Practice. To know more about our Employment Law Practice, please write to us at employmentlaw@legalogic.com.
Disclaimer:
This newsletter is for informational purpose only and should not be treated as legal advice or opinion. No part of this newsletter should be considered an advertisement or solicitation of professional services of LegaLogic.
