5. In Re: D An Advocate Of The Supreme ... vs Unknown - AIR 1956 SC 102
Case Name: An Advocate of the Supreme Court of India v. Unknown Citation: AIR 1956 SC 102
Parties:
- An Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
- Unknown
Facts: The Advocate of the Supreme Court of India filed a complaint against an unknown person who had sent a defamatory letter to the Chief Justice of India. The complaint stated that the unknown person had sent a letter containing false and malicious statements regarding the Advocate's professional conduct and reputation, which had caused harm to his professional standing.
Facts in Issue:
The issue in this case was whether the complaint filed by the Advocate of the Supreme Court of India was maintainable against an unknown person.
Order:
The Supreme Court of India held that the complaint was maintainable as the Advocates of the Supreme Court of India are entitled to maintain actions for defamation of their professional reputation, even if the identity of the person who made the defamatory statements is unknown. The court stated that a complaint can be made against "Unknown" if the circumstances of the case make it impossible to discover the name of the person who made the defamatory statement.
Explanation:
In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered the question of the maintainability of a complaint for defamation against an unknown person. The court held that the Advocates of the Supreme Court of India are entitled to maintain actions for defamation of their professional reputation, even if the identity of the person who made the defamatory statements is unknown. The court further stated that a complaint can be made against "Unknown" if the circumstances of the case make it impossible to discover the name of the person who made the defamatory statement.
This case is significant because it recognizes the right of Advocates of the Supreme Court of India to maintain actions for defamation of their professional reputation, even if the identity of the person who made the defamatory statement is unknown. This ruling serves as a protection for the professional reputation of lawyers and helps ensure that they are able to effectively defend their reputation in cases of defamation.
