Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In the decision reported in Lachhman v. Pyarchand and other (AIR 1959 Rajasthan 169), the court has discussed about the scope of absolute privilege and qualified privilege in respect of making publications as follows:

"The law is well settled that no action for a communication made on an occasion of a qualified privilege and fairly warranted by it lies unless it is proved to have been made maliciously or with an improper motive. It is also well established that the work 'malice' in this connection is used in the sense of an improper motive and that the burden of proving the same lies on the plaintiff. Malice in this sense means that the statement is made for some purpose other than the one for which the law confers the privilege of making it and so the defendant is entitled to the possession of the privilege if he uses the occasion for that reason but not where he uses it for some indirect and wrong motive. Malice may be proved by intrinsic evidence or it may be inferred from the language used in the statement itself. A statement made by a party in his report or complaint to the police is absolutely privileged. The doctrine of absolute privilege forbids any inquiry into the motives of the persons who made the complaint".

27. In the decision reported in Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha and another v. Bageshwari Pandey (AIR 1961 Patna 164), the Patna High Court has considered the scope of privilege both absolute privilege and qualified privilege and also considered the question of malice and the assessment regarding damages and observed as follows:

"The occasion of absolute privilege as defence to an action for defamation may be classed as the administration of justice, proceedings in Parliament and advising the State in affairs of State, this last mentioned category extending to communications between officers of State in relation to State affairs. The plea of 'absolute privilege' therefore, is available, for example, in respect of any statement made in the course of and with reference to judicial proceedings by any Judge, jurymen, party, witness or advocate. Such privilege is called 'judicial privilege' and 'professional privilege'.
Privilege is qualified where the defendant is entitled to make the statement, even if it is fake, 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 or improper motive, is entitled to make defamatory statements about another. Qualified privilege, therefore, is an intermediate case between total Amongst the chief instances of qualified privilege are also the following two: (1) Statements made in the performance of a duty; whether legal, moral, or social; such as Police investigating a crime; (2) Statements made in the protection of some lawful interest, which include statements in self-protection, protection of oneself or of one's property, and statements made to the proper authorities in order to procure the redress of public grievances.

33. It is clear from the above dictums that if the publication made is perse defamatory, then the burden is on the person made the publication to prove that he is justified in making the same as fair comment, justification by truth and in good faith and it is protected by privilege either absolute or qualified. In order to get the protection of privilege of absolute nature, it must be done in the official discharge of his duty protecting the interest of the public. In the case of qualified privilege, he must prove that it was done with due care and attention in discharge of a moral or public duty or private vested in him in the interest of public and welfare of the society at large or making such statement is to protect his own conduct. If a privilege is taken as a defence, then the entire statement made must be proved to be true and if any portion of the same is not proved to be true and made without any enquiry regarding its genuineness with the knowledge that it is likely to cause loss of reputation to the person against whom such imputations were made, then he will not be entitled to get that protection and liable for defamation. Further if only a general statement was made regarding certain action in public interest which had happened in a public institution without intending or aiming a person responsible for the same in discharge of his official duty or moral responsibility as a public person, then he is entitled to get qualified privilege and exempted from liability for making such statement. Once it is proved that the statement made is perse defamatory and it is likely to affect the reputation of the person intended, then the person affected is entitled to get compensation and general damages for loss of reputation can be granted even though the person affected is not able to prove that he sustained any special damage on account of the impugned publication. If there is an innuendo in the imputation which is capable of pointing out a particular person to the understanding of the persons acquainted with him, then even if the name of that particular person was not mentioned and if the affected person is able to prove that, that was intended against him, then he is getting a right of action under tort to sue the person who made the imputation for compensation for making defamatory publication against him.