HT Gets Defamation Notice For Article Questioning Public Sector Client’s Ability To Pay Sr Advocates’ Professional Fees

Advocate Kartik Seth, who is acting on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra – the Chief Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UAPSIDC) – has sent a defamation notice to leading daily, Hindustan Times, claiming that its report titled “UP babu accused of corruption has Rs 1L pay, hires top lawyers Rohatgi, Sorabjee”, is “malicious”, and cast “aspersions on the integrity” of his client.The HT report states:“What do India’s top lawyers -- Soli Sorabjee, Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi and others -- have in common? They have all defended a mid-level bureaucrat in Uttar Pradesh who is accused of amassing disproportionate assets worth crores and running scores of fake bank accounts.A bevy of legal luminaries have appeared multiple times in the Supreme Court and the Allahabad high court individually over the past three years to defend Arun Mishra, chief engineer with the UP State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC).The unusual part -- Mishra draws a monthly salary of just over Rs 1 lakh while it is understood that the lawyers often charge a fee ranging between five and twenty lakh per day.”Mr. Seth hence claims that the report has indicated that Mr. Mishra could not have paid the Senior Advocates’ professional fees with the salary that he earns. In this regard, he clarifies in the notice that Advocate General Mukul Rohatgi had appeared on behalf of UPSIDC and not his client. Further, with regard to the other Senior Advocates mentioned in the article, the notice states, “Before jumping to conclusions and casting aspersions on my client, you should have at least brushed up your knowledge about client-attorney privilege which includes non-disclosure of professional fees charged by the lawyer to his clients.”The notice further alleges that by referring to cases of CBI and ED against Mr. Mishra, HT “tried to portray a picture which shows him in very poor light and raises question marks over his integrity.” Further, as per the Notice, Mr. Mishra is understood to have given a sum of Rs. 25,000 to an HT correspondent, “as extortion”, for the assurance that the article wouldn’t be published. “This was clearly motivated blackmailing by your correspondent,” the notice therefore says.Advocate Kartik Seth then demands that the impugned article be removed from the website, and an unconditional apology be issued to Mr. Mishra, for the “vexatious allegations”. “The said apology should include the true facts about the integrity of my client as can be evidenced from his track record and not from maliciously put version in article. The coverage should be with same prominence as the maliciously article. Further, you are required to immediately cease and desist from making/publishing any more false, malicious and defamatory remarks/ articles against my client, we shall be constrained to directly launch criminal proceedings against you and your company,” the notice demands, warning HT of legal action, in case it fails to comply with the requirements of the notice within 15 days.

HT Gets Defamation Notice For Article Questioning Public Sector Client’s Ability To Pay Sr Advocates’ Professional Fees

Apoorva Mandhani

Tags