Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The privilege conferred on a lawyer is not absolute in the real sense as a lawyer can be held guilty in a contempt of the Court action for misconduct or criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter referred to as the "I.P.C."].

(iii) The judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge were rendered before the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India.1 The judgments considered by the learned Single Judge did not address or deal with the issue that the reputation of an individual has been raised to the status of a fundamental right.

(v) The learned Single Judge ignored the observations made in paragraphs 67 and 68 of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramanian Swamy.3 A perusal of the said paragraphs of the judgement would show that the Court has held:

(2016) 7 SCC 221.

B Sumat Prasad Jain vs Sheodutt Sharma, A.I.R. (1946) All 213.

21.2 As mentioned above, the utterances should be made for the purpose of judicial proceedings by the persons charged with the duty to make such statements in the course of the proceedings or at least have reference to the subject matter of the proceedings. The reliance placed by Mr Gupta on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy's case, in our opinion, does not, in any way, run counter to the doctrine of absolute privilege enunciated by Courts as far back as the 19th century.10 21.3 Therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge was right in invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It is well-established, contrary to the submission made by Mr Gupta, that the Court can, sou motu, exercise this power without waiting for a formal application being filed by the defendant.11 21.4 Since the cause of action for instituting the suit was founded on the alleged defamatory statement, in our opinion, because of the protection offered to the respondent by the doctrine of absolute privilege, the Court could not have entertained such cause. Therefore, the plaint was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Such cause is not recognized by the Court and in any event, is barred from being entertained. 21.5 The submission advanced by Mr Gupta that the suit should have been See Munster vs. Lamb, supra note 4.