Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter III: General Exceptions > Judicial Acts as Exception to Criminal Liability (Ss. 15 and 16 BNS)
The concept of a judicial acts as exception to criminal liability holds significant importance within criminal law. Generally, individuals who commit illegal acts are held accountable for their actions. However, there are specific circumstances in which certain actions, typically performed by public officials, are exempt from criminal liability. One of the key exceptions to this principle is when the act is a result of a judicial or quasi-judicial process. In such cases, the law recognizes that judges, magistrates, and other legal authorities may perform certain actions as part of their official duties, even if those actions might otherwise be deemed unlawful.
Judicial acts include actions like issuing a court order, making a ruling, or carrying out decisions within the bounds of their legal responsibilities. The rationale behind this exception lies in the idea of ensuring judicial independence and the proper functioning of the legal system. If judges and other officials were to face criminal liability for their decisions or actions within the scope of their duties, it could undermine the integrity of the judicial system and hinder the fair administration of justice. This article discusses judicial acts as exception to criminal liability, highlighting the legal framework and the underlying principles that justify such immunity.
List of Sub-Topics:
Chapter III of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, entitled โGeneral Exceptions,โ which includes sections 14 to 44, exempts certain individuals from criminal liability. An accusedโs act or omission, even if prima facie falls within the terms of a section defining an offense or prescribing punishment for it, is not an offense, if it is covered by any of the exceptions listed in chapter III. General Exceptions (Sec. 15 and 16 BNS) relates acts of Judges and Courts (Judicial Acts),
The principles enunciated in Chapter 4 are in fact rules of evidence carrying either conclusive or rebuttable presumptions. They deal with the circumstances which preclude the existence of โMens reaโ. They are the principles โCondition of non imputabilityโ or โcondition of exemptions from criminal liabilityโ. If the existence of facts, or circumstances bringing the case within any of the exemptions is proved, negatives the existence of โMens reaโ necessary to constitute the offence and thereby furnishes a ground for exemption from criminal liability.
A person can take the defense only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Blackโs law dictionary, the word โjustifiedโ means โthe act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of lawโ.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 15 BNS:
Act of Judge When Acting Judicially:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
Note:
This Section corresponds to Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872
Ingredients of S. 15 BNS:
- The act must be done by a judge;
- He must be exercising his power judicially;
- He is acting in a good faith; and
- He believes that such power are given to him by law.
Provisions contained in this section is analogous to the what has been addressed in the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850.Under this section a Judicial officer is protected for acts bona fide done in exercise of judicial power. Thus, according to the section a Judge is exemptedย not only in those cases in which he proceeds irregularly in the exercise of a power which the law gives him, but also in cases where he exceeds his jurisdiction in good faith and has no lawful powers. For example: a judge who sentences a prisoner to death (even wrongly) is not responsible for his death by hanging. The act of judge is exempted under the code from criminal liability where the judge is not charged of the crime committed. As the acts show absence of mens rea i.e., guilty mind.
Case Laws:
In Albert v. Levin, (1981) 1 All ER 628 (D.C.) case, the Court held that under Section 77 IPC (S. 15 BNS) a Judge is exempted not only in those cases in which he proceeds irregularly in the exercise of power which the law gives him, but also in cases where he, in good faith, exceeds his jurisdiction and has no lawful powers.
In Megh Raj vs Zakir Hussain, (1875) ILR 1 All 280 case, the High Court of Allahabad has held that no person acting judicially is liable for an act done or ordered to be done in the discharge of his official duty within the limits of his jurisdiction and in such a case the question of acting in good faith does not arise. The question of good faith is irrelevant only when a judge acts without jurisdiction. But when there is jurisdiction, the immunity extends even to acts which constitute even an abuse of it.
In A K Chaudhary v. State of Gujrat, 2006 CrLJ 726 (Guj) case, the Court held that the Judicial officers Protection Act provides protection of two broad categories of acts done or ordered by a judicial officer in his judicial capacity. In the first category falls the acts which are within the limits of his jurisdiction. The second category encompasses the acts which are not within the jurisdiction of the judicial officer, but are done or ordered by him, believing in good faith that he had jurisdiction to do or order them.
In Surendra Kumar Bhatia v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 2009 SC 1961 case, the Court held that a Collector who exercises powers of enquiry and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not acting judicially because he is not a judge. He is not entitled to the protection of section 77 IPC (S. 15 BNS).
In Megh Raj vs Zakir Hussain (1875) case, the High Court of Allahabad has held that โno person acting judicially is liable for an act done or ordered to be done in the discharge of his official duty within the limits of his jurisdiction and in such a case the question of acting in good faith does not arise. The question of good faith is irrelevant only when a judge acts without jurisdiction. But when there is jurisdiction, the immunity extends even to acts which constitute even an abuse of it.
In ES Sanjeeva Rao v. CBI, Mumbai, 2012 CrLJ 4053 (Bom) case, the โRegional Provident Fund Commissioner while passing order under section 7-A of 1952 Act is entitled to get protection as envisaged under section 77 of IPC (S. 15 IPC) and section 3(1) of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 16 BNS:
Act Done Pursuant to the Judgment or Order of Court:
Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
For example: A, an officer of the court, arrested B, following the courtโs order. Here, A has committed no offence.
Note:
This Section corresponds to Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872
Ingredients of Section 16 BNS:
- Act done by a person is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice;
- Such order or judgment is in a force;
- The Court giving judgment or issuing order may or may not have required jurisdiction; and
- The person is doing his part in a good faith believing that the Court has such jurisdiction.
This section is a result of Section 15 BNS. This section provides protection to officers acting under the authority of a courtโs decision or order of a Court of justice. The section states that if an act is committed at the time of the imposition of a decision or order of a court, it will not be considered an offence, even if the court does not have jurisdiction to pass such a decision. However, the act must be done believing in good faith that the court has such jurisdiction. Under this section, one can plead a mistake of law as a defence.
In Kapur Chand vs State (1976) In pursuance of an order of the Magistrate, the accused (husband) had withdrawn the property of his wife from her control without her consent. It was held that the husband had not committed any offence as he was protected under section 78 of the IPC (S. 16 BNS).
Difference Between Section 15 and Section 16 BNS:
Section 16 differs from section 15 on the question of Jurisdiction.ย In Section 16, the officer is protected in carrying out an order of a court which may have no jurisdiction at all, if he believed that the court had jurisdiction; whereas under section 15 the judge must be acting within his jurisdiction to be protected by it.
| Section 15 | Section 16 |
| This Section deals with act of a Judge or Magistrate | This Section deals with act of a person acting under the direction of a Judge or Magistrate |
| This Section provides an exception for judicial officers performing their duties in good faith. | This Section extends similar protection to any person who acts under the direction of a judge or magistrate. |
| This section states that an act done by a judge or magistrate in the course of their judicial duties will not be considered an offense, even if it would otherwise be illegal, as long as the act is performed in the discharge of their official duty. | According to this Section, if an individual commits an act on the instructions of a judicial officer, they are not criminally liable, provided the action was performed in good faith and within the scope of judicial authority. |
| Example: A judge who passes a judgment that may later be overturned is still protected under Section 15 BNS as long as they acted within their official role and didnโt engage in corruption or misconduct. | Example: A police officer executing an arrest warrant based on a judgeโs order would not be liable |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Conclusion:
Provisions contained in this section is analogous to the what has been addressed in the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850.Under this section a Judicial officer is protected for acts bona fide done in exercise of judicial power. Thus, according to the section a Judge is exemptedย not only in those cases in which he proceeds irregularly in the exercise of a power which the law gives him, but also in cases where he exceeds his jurisdiction in good faith and has no lawful powers.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here