Absolute privilege in judicial proceedings protects relevant statements from civil defamation claims, even if allegedly defamatory.

Statements made by parties, counsel and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege in civil defamation law when they have reference to the enquiry. The privilege rests on public policy and is not lost merely because the words are alleged to be defamatory, made with motive, or not strictly necessary or absolutely relevant. Only statements wholly outside the matter in hand fall outside the protection. Applying this rule, the impugned statements were held to be privileged, the civil suit for damages was not maintainable, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements made by a party and counsel in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege and therefore not actionable in a civil suit for defamation, even if alleged to be defamatory or not strictly relevant to the dispute.

Analysis: The statements were made during the course of a judicial proceeding and in the context of explaining the background of the dispute and the motive attributed to the opposite party. The governing rule of common law, followed in India, is that judges, counsel, parties and witnesses are protected by absolute privilege for statements made on a privileged occasion in judicial proceedings. The basis of the rule is public policy, not truth, absence of malice, or the individual's motive. The privilege is not defeated merely because a statement may be defamatory or because it is not strictly necessary or absolutely relevant. Only statements wholly dehors the matter in hand, having no reference to the enquiry, fall outside the protection. The safeguards against abuse lie in the law of contempt, perjury, malicious prosecution, criminal defamation, and the court's powers under the Evidence Act concerning cross-examination and improper questions.

Conclusion: The impugned statements were not absolutely irrelevant and were protected by absolute privilege; the civil suit for damages for defamation was therefore not maintainable against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the suit was upheld, as no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made by parties, counsel, and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged in civil defamation actions if they have reference to the enquiry, and this protection is not defeated merely by alleged defamation or lack of strict relevancy.

---