Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) In absolute privilege, the defendant gets absolute exemption from liability; in a 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 defense 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 defense is absolute and irrefutable by plaintiff, whereas in qualified privilege the defense is not absolute but reputable by the plaintiff.

59. Gatley on Libel and Slandar (10th Edition) vide para 27.18 has opined that where a defendant alleges that the words 'complained of' were published on a privileged occasion, he must specify the circumstances he relies on in support of that contention. In para 13.4, learned author has opined that where a defense of absolute privilege is set up, it is for the defendant to allege and prove all such facts as are necessary to bring the words complained of within the privilege, unless such facts are disclosed in the statement of case, or otherwise admitted before or at the trial of the occasion.

68. The decision brings out that absolute privilege is not absolute in the context of being infinite. Even when the occasion is privileged one gets no license to utter irrelevant and scandalous things unrelated to the proceedings. If what is stated is necessary or relevant to the proceedings, immunity would be absolute.

69. I would be failing in not noting a few decisions which have highlighted the self-limiting span and sweep of the defense of qualified privilege.

70. Qualified privilege may be defeated and its protection destroyed by proof of express malice. But how is express malice to be established

95. Traditional defenses to an action for defamation have now become fairly crystallized and can be compartmentalized in 3 compartments : truth, fair comment and privilege. Truth, or justification, is a complete defense. The standard of proof of truth is not absolute but is limited to establishing that what was spoken was 'substantially correct'. Fair comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. Standard of proof is not that the Court has to agree with the opinion, but is limited to determine whether the views could honestly have been held by a fair-minded person on facts known at the time. Unlike defense of truth, defense based on fair comment can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defamer acted with malice. Similar is the situation where the defense is of qualified privilege. Privilege is designed to protect expression made for the public good. Protection of qualified privilege is lost if actual malice is established. In public interest, absolute privilege is a complete defense. Rationale of absolute privilege being restricted to Court proceedings or proceedings before Tribunals which have all the trappings of a Civil Court and Parliamentary proceedings is that if threat of defamation suits loom large over the heads of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, Judges and Parliamentarians it would prohibit them from speaking freely and public interest would suffer.