The Delhi High Court has noted that the principle of absolute privilege bars the consideration of allegations directed at judges, lawyers, witnesses, or parties regarding their involvement in judicial proceedings within courts or tribunals.

A division bench, consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal, emphasized that this privilege extends to statements from witnesses, testimonies, and documents that are appropriately utilized and routinely prepared for use in judicial proceedings.

The bench further clarified that the only exception to this privilege is for statements that are not made for the explicit purposes of judicial proceedings by individuals who are obligated to provide statements in those proceedings, or statements that have no relevance whatsoever to the subject matter under consideration in the proceedings.

“Likewise, where Court and Parliamentary proceedings are concerned, the doctrine of privilege kicks in based on public interest. At times, when the defence of absolute privilege is not available, in exceptional cases, public policy can also preclude the Court from entertaining a claim,” the bench said.

The court made these observations while dismissing an appeal brought forth by a businessman challenging a single judge's decision to reject his complaint filed against a senior counsel. The complaint alleged that a statement made by the senior counsel during the course of arguments in open court was defamatory.

The single judge had asserted that statements made by a lawyer during judicial proceedings are endowed with "absolute privilege," implying that no legal action for defamation, slander, or libel can be pursued against them for presenting their arguments.

In affirming the challenged order, the bench stated that the alleged defamatory statement, being orally made by the senior counsel during the proceedings before the Sessions Court, would be shielded by the doctrine of absolute privilege, unless it was entirely unrelated to the subject matter under consideration in those proceedings.

The court noted that the remarks made by the senior counsel must be considered within the context of what occurred in the courtroom in the presence of the Sessions Judge.

The bench concluded that the senior counsel acted well within his rights and in accordance with the doctrine of absolute privilege available to him when responding to the suggestion made by the Sessions Judge regarding the feasibility of settling the matter through mediation.

“While one cannot quibble with the broad proposition that a person, while exercising his right to free speech, cannot make reckless utterances, which tantamount to defaming another person, it has certain exceptions which we have referred to hereinabove. The exception, to reiterate, concerns claims for defamation involving utterances made during Parliamentary or Judicial proceedings,” the court said.

It further added that this rationale serves the public interest by alleviating the anxiety that defendants may feel when making statements during judicial proceedings, as such statements might otherwise subject them to defamation actions.