In a sharp rebuke to Wipro Limited, the Delhi High Court has ordered the IT giant to expunge defamatory remarks made in an employee’s termination letter. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, delivering the verdict, held that the termination letter contained stigmatic and unsubstantiated language, including terms such as “malicious conduct” and “complete loss of trust.” These phrases, the Court said, were not only unsupported by evidence but had serious consequences on the employee’s reputation, mental well-being, and career prospects.
To redress this harm, the Court awarded ₹2 lakh in compensatory damages to the employee and ordered Wipro to issue a revised termination letter without any defamatory content.
Legal Stand: Actionable Defamation and Forced Disclosure
The judgment invoked the legal principle of actionable defamation, highlighting that defamatory language—even in private documents like termination letters—can cause serious reputational damage. The Court relied on the American legal doctrine of “compelled self-publication,” which states that if an employer forces a former employee to reveal defamatory reasons for their termination (for example, to future employers), the employer is liable for the damage caused by such foreseeable disclosures.
Justice Kaurav observed that employers cannot escape liability by simply labeling damaging remarks as internal or confidential if they are reasonably likely to be shared.
No Valid Defence from Wipro
The Court rejected Wipro’s defense outright, noting a glaring mismatch between the allegations in the termination letter and the employee’s positive performance record in official documents. It ruled that the damaging statements were demonstrably false and defamatory in nature, and Wipro failed to provide any credible justification or legal defense.
“Why Can’t I Pay Now?”: Indian Woman Learns U.S. Law Doesn’t Do Takebacks on Felonies
The employee had originally sought ₹2 crore in damages, but the Court decided on ₹2 lakh as appropriate relief, tailored to address the wrongful reputational injury without being excessive.
A Message for Employers
This case underscores a growing legal consensus that employee dignity must be protected even in termination. The Court emphasized that employers must exercise caution and fairness in their communications, especially when those documents have the potential to impact future job prospects. The ruling is a warning that unsupported and stigmatic language in termination letters will not be tolerated and may lead to legal and financial consequences.
In closing, the Court reaffirmed that the right to professional dignity is central to employment and cannot be undermined by vague or harmful accusations, especially when no evidence is provided to support them.