https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456683 Defamatory questions put by counsel during cross-examination are not absolutely immune from defamation law merely because they were asked in court or on a client's instructions; liability depends on whether the imputation satisfies the statutory requirements of relevance, protection of interest and good faith under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code. Section 126 of the Evidence Act protects confidential client communications, but it does not bar counsel from stating that the questions were asked on instructions or from denying that they were self-generated. The document also notes that a discharge order based on an overbroad view of privilege and an assumption that instructions could not be proved would be legally unsound. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2024 16:28:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456683 Defamatory questions put by counsel during cross-examination are not absolutely immune from defamation law merely because they were asked in court or on a client's instructions; liability depends on whether the imputation satisfies the statutory requirements of relevance, protection of interest and good faith under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code. Section 126 of the Evidence Act protects confidential client communications, but it does not bar counsel from stating that the questions were asked on instructions or from denying that they were self-generated. The document also notes that a discharge order based on an overbroad view of privilege and an assumption that instructions could not be proved would be legally unsound. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456683