1985 (6) TMI 198 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed: Defamatory statements protected by absolute privilege. Safeguards uphold against misuse.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that defamatory statements made during a prior trial were protected by absolute ... - Issues Involved:1. Defamation during judicial proceedings2. Absolute privilege in judicial proceedings3. Relevance of defamatory statements to the case4. Safeguards against misuse of judicial proceedingsDetailed Analysis:1. Defamation during Judicial ProceedingsThe appellant filed a suit for damages due to defamatory questions and statements made during a previous trial. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed a second appeal, claiming damages for loss of reputation due to defamatory statements made during the prior trial.2. Absolute Privilege in Judicial ProceedingsBoth the trial court and the appellate court held that the defamatory statements made during the prior trial were protected by absolute privilege. The courts concluded that since the statements were made by or at the instance of a party during a judicial proceeding, the maker of the statements has absolute privilege, thus the appellant has no cause of action.3. Relevance of Defamatory Statements to the CaseThe appellant argued that the defamatory statements were irrelevant to the case and thus should not be protected by absolute privilege. However, the courts found that the statements were made to explain the background of the relationship between the parties and to establish a motive for the appellant to put forward a false money claim to harass the respondent. Therefore, the statements were not considered absolutely irrelevant or made outside the matter in hand.4. Safeguards Against Misuse of Judicial ProceedingsThe appellant's counsel contended that the view of absolute privilege could lead to misuse of judicial proceedings for slander and abuse. The court acknowledged this concern but noted that safeguards exist, such as the rule of contempt of court, criminal action for defamation, prosecution for perjury, and the court's responsibility to ensure a fair trial. The Indian Evidence Act provides provisions to prevent misuse during cross-examination, including Sections 146, 148, 149, 150, and 151, which regulate the scope and propriety of questioning witnesses.ConclusionThe court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the dismissal of the suit. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the defamatory statements made during the prior trial were protected by absolute privilege and were relevant to the case at hand.