Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It was further argued, on the principle that the greater includes the less, that if the Government had power to dismiss or compulsorily retire its servants, it necessarily must have power to reduce its servants or stop their promotion or to censure or reprimand them, and that all the acts of Government in relation to this matter were "acts of state and sovereignty" and could not be impugned in a Court of Justice. It was further argued that all such acts and documents or communications between Members of Government or Ministers in any way concerned with the employment and dismissal of public servants and officers were in their nature confidential and privileged, and that no action or suit could be based upon any such actions or Resolutions. Lastly, it was argued that the mere allegation that any of these acts of these public functionaries were actuated from feelings of malice will not make any difference, because the Courts will not and ought not to permit proof of any such malice being given: so it was argued by the learned Advocate-General that the plaintiff's case must fail.

44. Now, applying the principles laid down in these authorities, it seems to be clear that if the Resolution complained of be brought into Court, it must be held to be absolutely privileged; that the plaintiff would not be able to have it produced in Court; even if id was produced in Court, it would be my duty to refuse it to be put in evidence, and that no secondary evidence could be led. The result mush necessarily be that plain-biff must fail because the charge of malice cannot be allowed to be proved against a public functionary.