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 CS No. 323/24 Amrita Gupta Vs. Jatin Rastogi 11 of 17 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. On such an occasion, no doubt the right of freedom of speech prevails over the right of reputation, but only to a limited extent, that is, only when the statement is made honestly and without any indirect or improper motive and is not actuaed by any malice. Qualified privilege, therefore, is an intermediate case between total absence of privilege and the presence of absolute privilege.

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, CS No. 323/24 Amrita Gupta Vs. Jatin Rastogi 12 of 17 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 malice 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,
(v) In Absolute Privilege as well as in Qualified Privilege, the defendant has to prove his plea of privilege, but with this difference that in Absolute Privilege the defence is absolute and irrebuttable by plaintiff, whereas in Qualified Privilege the defence is not absolute but rebuttable by the plaintiff.

In the case in which it is sought to rely on a defence of qualified privilege, it is for the defendant to prove the facts and circumstances which establish that the occasion was privileged. If he does so, the burden of showing actual or express malice rests upon the plaintiff, and, if this is shown, communications made even on a privileged occasion, can no longer be regarded as privileged communications. If the Court rules that the occasion was not privileged, the plaintiff is not called upon to prove actual malice. In such a case the law implies malice from the falsity of the statement.