This Article is written by Kavya Lakshmi Devi , Intern at Legal Vidhiya
INTRODUCTION:-
It is the right of every man to defend himself against unlawful force, and it is the duty of an officer of justice to apply force and restraint in various degrees. There are certain situations, like when the plaintiff provides the proof for the existence of the elements of a tort, the defendant can be released from his liability. This is called “the rules of immunity, which limit the rules of liability” by Pollock. There are various conditions that, when present, will prevent an act from being wrongful, which in their absence would be wrong. They can be termed “general defences.” In such a case, the defendant justifies the tort by establishing a defence and gets an exemption from the liability. Such justification is called justification in tort. Judicial and quasi-judicial acts are part of this general defence under the law of Torts.
JUDICIAL ACTS:-
A judge or Judicial officer discharging his official duties or judicial function within the proper jurisdiction is called a “Judicial act”. The judges are bound by the law to give decisions following the complete court procedure.
- How can a judge effectively carry out their duties if they have to constantly worry about being sued for the decisions they make in court? So to carry out their duties effectively, the rule of judicial immunity is established. This rule states that no action will lie against a judge for any act done or words spoken in his judicial capacity in a Court of Justice.
- The rule of judicial immunity is founded on the principle of public benefit, whose interest is that the danger should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences. Being free from the action, he may be free in thought and independent in judgement.
- This rule of judicial immunity states that no trail can be taken against a Judge for any act or any words spoken by him in the course of his judicial functions. This defence can be made by a judge if an action is taken against him in atrocity.
English law: Under English law, in the case of the Superior Court, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the judge has no jurisdictio,n but in the case of an inferior court, the judge must prove that he had jurisdiction.
Liability: But there is an instance where the judge becomes liable, i.e., when the court has no jurisdiction over the cause, the jurisdiction has been extended or excess of jurisdiction is attributed to the judge.
Indian law:- Under Indian law, the Judicial Officer’s Protection act 1850 protects the judicial officers acting judicially and also states that “any person (I.e., judge, magistrate, collector, etc.) acting judicially shall not be liable for any act done by him in the discharge of his judicial duties whether or not within the limits of his judicially he at that time, in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do the act and shall not be prosecuted in a civil court.
- The statute, it must be noticed, protects a Judicial Officer only when he is acting in his judicial capacity and not in any other capacity.
The judge can make use of this defence when the below two conditions are satisfied.
- The act must be carried out to fulfil their judicial duty.
- And the judge must act out at least believe in good faith that he has jurisdiction to act.
Liability:- The judges just can be held liable if the act done by them is not in good faith and any corrupt or partisan exercises are being done in their office.
In case of Sailajanand Pandey vs Suresh Gupta [AIR 1969 Pat. 194], it was held that magistrate was liable for the Wrong or false imprisonment as he was acting malafide illegally an outside his jurisdiction ordered the arrest of the plaintiff and Was not entitled to the protection given by judicial officers protection act 1850.
- The rule of immunity is not only limited to judges but also extended to members of naval and military court-martials and courts of inquiry under military law.
- It is also applied for limited extent to arbitrators, and to any person who is in a position like an arbitrator’s, choose by a party to decide the matter shall also not made to be liable for errors in judgement if he acts honestly.
- This immunity cannot be granted to the ministerial act.
QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS:-
The word quasi is a Latin word that means similar to. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, it means that something is almost similar but not completely.
A quasi-judicial act can be defined as any activity undertaken by public administrative agencies or tribunals established by the law. These acts are not exactly the court proceedings. They are not considered as courts but may have the functions and powers of certain laws. In many cases, quasi-judicial functions are created or confirmed by parliament. These are acts of universities colleges, committees, and inns of courts that exercise quasi-judicial functions. The power to make rules and regulations for their own administration is known as quasi judicial authority. There are Individuals who exercise these quasi judicial powers.
The general rule is that a person exercising their quasi-judicial functions or powers are protected from civil liability if they observe the rules of natural justice and also particular statutory or conventional rules.
The rules of natural justice is that no person shall be wrongfully terminated or removed from the office without giving
- The opportunity of being heard
- The opportunity of defending himself.
- And the person removing him should act in good faith.
In Dawkins vs Antroous, It was held that if the above conditions are satisfied then the court will not interfere even if it thinks the decision to wrong.
In Fisher vs Keane, it was held that if the natural justice conditions are not followed, the act complained of will he declared void, and the persons affected by it maintained in his rights until the matter has been properly dealt with.
In the case of Nagar vs the municipality of Dhandhuka West J. Said the Public Authorities must not conduct themselves arbitrarily or tyrannically even when they are acting within the limits prescribed by the statute.
In General Medical Council vs Spackman, A statutory rule being disregarded by the General Medical Council was that taking disciplinary action against a member ‘after due inquiry’. The General Medical Council was asked to take disciplinary action against a member who had been found guilty of adultery by the divorce court. the council acted solely on the decision of the court and refuse to hear fresh evidence which the member offered. It was held that there was no due inquiry and the council was liable.
- The judicial protection act 1850 also states that if an officer unaware of the fact that he is executing his duty or a Court issued warrant that exceeds the court jurisdictional power, then they may receive immunity for carrying out their duty.
CONCLUSION:-
So from the above article, it is clear that no suit can be brought against the judge or Judicial officer for any acts done whilst doing his duty. With the rule of judicial immunity, a Judge or a Judicial officer can discharge their functions effectively and independently without any fear of action. Not only the judicial officers gain immunity from this defence but even the quasi-judicial authorities like National Green Tribunal, CAG, income tax appellate tribunal etc., can also be protected from civil liability.
Reference:
- Judicial-and-QJ by CSJM university.
- https://legalpaathshala.com/judicial-and-quasi-judicial-acts/#:~:text=A%20Judicial%20Act%20is%20an,the%20proceedings%20of%20the%20court.
- https://lexpeeps.in/judicial-and-quasi-judicial-acts/
- THE LAW OF TORTS: A TREATISE ON THE PRINCIPLES OF OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CIVIL
- WRONGS IN THE COMMON I._W: by Sm FREDERICK POLLOCK, BXRT. FOURTH EDITION
- ENGLISH AND INDIAN LAW OF TORTS.
- BY RATANLAL RANCHHODDAS AND DHIRAJLAL KESHAVLAL. THIRD EDITION.
