Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

55. Qualified Privilege : In order, however, to decide the question of qualified privilege, raised by the appellants, it would be useful, at this very stage, also to know, what is a qualified privilege? what are its essentials? and, in what respect does qualified privilege differ from an absolute privilege?

56. Privilege is qualified where the defendant is entitled to make the statement, even if it is false, but only if he makes it honestly with respect to what he states and carefully with respect to the means by which he states it. Qualified privilege exists when the defendant is exempted from the rule of strict liability for defamation not absolutely, but only conditionally on the absence of malice. When, therefore, an occasion of qualified privilege exists a person, provided he is not actuated by malice, is entitled to make defamatory statements about another.

59. It would be useful to know the distinction between absolute privilege and qualified privilege. The points of distinction between absolute privilege and qualified privilege are the following:

"(i) In absolute privilege, it is the occasion which is privileged, and when once the nature of the occasion is shown, it follows, as a necessary inference, that every communication on that occasion is protected; in qualified privilege, the occasion is, not privileged, until the defendant has shown how that occasion was used. It is not enough to have an interest or a duty in making a statement, the necessity of the existence of an interest of duty in making the statement complained of, must also be shown:
(ii) In absolute privilege, the defendant gets absolute exemption from liability; in qualified privilege, the defendant gets a conditional exemption from liability:
(iii) In absolute privilege, the defendant is exempted from liability even when there is malice on his part; in qualified privilege, the defendant is exempted from liability only when there is no make On his part:
(iv) In absolute privilege, statements are protected in all circumstances, irrespective of the presence of good or bad motives; in qualified privilege, even after a case of qualified privilege has been established by the defendant, it may be met by the plaintiff proving in reply improper or evil motive on the part of the defendant, in which case the defence of qualified privilege vanishes, and the plaintiff succeeds; and,

85. Here, the trial court held that it was not a case of absolute privilege, but, the lower appellate court, in disagreement with it, held that it was. I have also agreed with the trial judge that it was not a case of absolute privilege, but, at best, it was a case of qualified privilege, as held by Wort, J., in the Patna case, and, by the Full Bench in the Allahabad case.

86. In the words of Peafson, J., in Webb v. Times Publishing Co. Ltd., (1960) 2 All E. R. 789, Q. B. D., at p. 800, ".....there is no qualified privilege of a general or 'blanket' character." The plea of qualified privilege, as such, in the present case, should have been pleaded specifically in the written statement, either as a substantial defence, or, as an alternative defence, and, also raised in the issues at the trial; because, in the case of a qualified privilege, the defendant has this limited protection that, provided he is not misusing the privileged occasion, the publication is covered by the privilege, but, if, however, he is malicious he has no defence on the ground of privilege. This not having been done, the defendant cannot now be allowed at the appellate stage to raise the defence of qualified privilege, and, as such, it is not necessary, in the present case, to refer the question of qualified privilege for further investigation to the Courts below.