Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. If one party to the litigation communicates to the opposite party of an alleged interference with the course of justice it is a privilege occasion because it is in the interest of every litigant and common interest of both the parties to the litigation that there should be no interference with the course of justice. Hines v. Davidson, 1935 S.C. 30 at p. 37.

15. Viewed in this legal perspective, I think the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendants in their various communications/petitions to the plaintiffs or to the Joint Registrar or other authorities having control over the aforesaid Society fall in the category of privileged communications and no action for defamation will be maintainable. The defendants who were members of the Society had the right and duty to complain to the office bearers of the society and concerned authorities under the law against the mismanagement of affairs/funds of the Society and vice-a-versa, the office bearers and authorities having control over the Society were obliged/entitled to entertain such complaints and look into them. The reciprocity of interest/obligation is thus manifest. Obvious conclusion, therefore, is that allegation/statement contained in such communications, petitions/complaints are privileged. They can not be made the basis of an action for damages for defamation. This suit, therefore, is not maintainable, under the law.