caselaw on judicial officer protection Act

From the bare perusal of the Section 1 of The 1850 Act, it is clear that the Judicial Officer acting judicially is protected in respect of any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty provided he in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of. Insofar as Section 3 of The 1985 Act, which provides additional protection to Judges clearly stipulates that no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. Thus, Section 3 gives complete immunity to a Judge or Ex-Judge in respect of any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. Section 4 of the said Act also provides that provision of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force providing for protection of Judges. The conjoint reading of sections 3 and 4 makes it clear that the protection given to a Judge or Ex-Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him while discharging official or judicial function is absolute. Under Section 1 of The 1850 Act the protection from being sued in civil suit is available to a Judge or Magistrate for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty provided he in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of. As such the protection available to a Judge under The 1850 Act is in respect of any action taken in good faith whereas the protection available under The 1985 Act is absolute and is even available not only to a sitting Judge but also to an Ex-Judge in respect of the actions taken or words spoken by him while discharging his official or judicial function. The reason behind giving absolute protection by The 1985 Act is quite obvious. If such an absolute protection is not given, the Judge or Ex Judge runs the risk of facing civil action at the instance of the disgruntled litigants who may have been aggrieved by adverse orders passed against them. If such an absolute protection is not given, a Judge or an Ex-judge is likely to face frivolous suits at the instance of the litigants who are aggrieved by adverse orders passed by the Judge or Ex-Judge. Therefore, in order to give absolute protection to the Judge not only during his tenure but even thereafter, the Legislature thought it fit to enact The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. A bare reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act makes the intention of the legislature to give complete protection to a Judge sitting or retired clear.

Print Page