Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. This Court in the case of Ram Jethmalani(supra),has referred the decision of the High Court of Patna in the case of Panday Surinder Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Prasad6, which aptly draws a distinction between absolute and qualified privilege. The relevant portion of the said decision is culled out for reference:-

"(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, 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 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 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 irrefutable by plaintiff, whereas in qualified privilege the defence is not absolute but reputable by the plaintiff."

AIR 1961 Patna 164.