Absolute privilege protects statements made by counsel in judicial proceedings from civil defamation damages claims.

Defamatory words spoken by counsel in the course of a pending judicial proceeding were held to be absolutely privileged and therefore not actionable in a civil suit for damages. The Court applied the English common law rule of absolute privilege in India to words spoken by judges, counsel, attorneys, witnesses and parties in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, where the statements were relevant to the conduct of the cause, even if alleged to be malicious or defamatory. It further held that Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code does not displace this civil immunity. The alleged statements were thus protected and no civil claim for damages lay.

---

---

Issues: Whether defamatory statements made by counsel in the course of a judicial proceeding were absolutely privileged and therefore not actionable in a civil suit for damages.

Analysis: The plaint itself showed that the statements were made in court during the hearing of a pending suit, for the purpose of seeking an adjournment to lead evidence in mitigation of damages. On those averments, the words were spoken in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings and were relevant to the conduct of the cause. The Court held that the English common law rule of absolute privilege applies in India to civil actions for defamation, and that judges, counsel, attorneys, witnesses and parties are protected for words spoken in the course of judicial proceedings, even if malicious or defamatory. The Court further held that the criminal law under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not displace that civil immunity.

Conclusion: The alleged statements were absolutely privileged and no civil action for damages lay.

---