PROJECT ON- LAW OF TORTS

TOPIC- JUDICIAL AND QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

1
Synoptical Outline:

· Introduction
· Meaning & Scope of Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Authorities
· Critical Analysis of Dicey’s Rule of Law with Reference to Judicial and Quasi-Judicial
Authorities
· Analysis of the Judicial Officer Protection, 1850
· Analysis of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
· Relevant Case Laws
- Anderson v. Gorrie
- Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
- Re McC v. Mullan
- Sirros v. Moore
- Rahendra Baglari v. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate
· Can the liability of the authorities be ascertained?
· Conclusion.

ANSWER 2.

INTRODUCTION

General defenses mentioned under law of torts are available to every single person when they
claim to have a reason behind the commitment of a tort. Apart from these defenses there is also
an immunity available to certain people. Those immunities are granted to judicial and quasi—
judicial authorities, subject to certain requirements. The privilege of immunity is based on the
legal maxim, intra vires and ultra vires. This is the basis of granting an immunity and protecting
the person from the unnecessary liability. It is also vital to understand as to what extent they
could be held liable when the immunity is not granted. If the act done is with accordance to the
law and the powers used are intra vires then the immunity would be certainly granted. And if the
said act goes beyond the power and their authority, then it is the case of ultra vires and the
immunity will not be granted. To understand this concept first it is important to understand what
is judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and under what parameters they are immunized. The

2
need for such immunity arose because during the course of their duties, the authorities may make
some remark or observations which might be offensive to that particular individual. Hence, that
individual may sue the authority on that basis because in our country, Rule of law prevails in our
society which certainly means that no one is above the law.

MEANING AND SCOPE OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.

To understand the concept of immunity and liability, it is vital to see the scope and difference
between both the terms:

Judicial authorities- A judicial act is an act done by an authority who is competent and
authorized, to impose liability or reward compensation by considering and scrutinizing the facts
and situations presented.

Quasi-Judicial authorities- The term Quasi means ‘as if’ therefore, quasi-judicial means, an
authority which is empowered under any statute or provisions to discharge the duty. The dispute
could be between two citizens or between the individual and the authority itself. The authority
has to discharge its duties with accordance to rules of natural justice. To sum it up, it is an
authority which resembles a court of law and has the power the interpret the law yet, it’s a non-
judicial body.

-Examples of Quasi-judicial bodies in India

· National Human Rights Commission.

With the increase in scope of tortious liability, brings the concern of personal liability of the
authorities delegating their duties. Therefore, they are given the privilege of immunity. So, that
they can delegate their duties within the powers prescribed by the law.

3
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DICEY’S RULE OF LAW WITH REFERENCE TO
JUDICIAL AND QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.

The term Rule of law was introduced by Sir Edward Coke, although its proponent could be dated
back to the time of Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. This idea was originated in
England during King James I. Sir Coke was the then Chief Justice of England, He believed that
the King has ought to be under the god and law, because it is the law which has made him the
King and therefore, he established the supremacy of law. Sir Coke was the first person who
criticized the concept of Divine law. However, he did not mention the phrase Rule of Law at that
time but the credit of originating the concept is bestowed upon him. The term Rule of law was
used by professor AV Dicey in his book “Introduction to the study of the law of the
constitution”, this book was published in 1885 and Professor Dicey did a very detailed analysis
of the concept and tried to develop it.

Back then, the phrase, the king can do no wrong was very prominent. The king used to act in any
manner he wants and he was not answerable to anyone, because it was believed that the king is
in god’s position and he cannot do any injustice.

Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law:

According to Professor Dicey the Rule of law is based on three pillars. The concept of those
three pillars is – Supremacy of law, Equality before law and predominance of legal spirit.

· Supremacy of Law- According to this principle, there should be supremacy of laws over
all the people, including those administrating the law. ‘The Law rules over people and the
people does not rules over the law’. Dicey mentioned, the supremacy of law over the
arbitrary powers of the government is the significant principle of rule of law. In simple
words, an individual arbitrarily delegating its duty by going beyond the powers conferred
upon would be punished.
· Equality before law- According to Dicey, there should be the same set of laws for every
individual. The law should treat people equally, irrespective of rank or positions. Every
person should be adjudicated in the same manner and in the same court.
· Predominance of legal spirit – As per Dicey’s observation, for prevalence of Rule of law,
there should be predominance of legal spirit in the courts of law and the people. Because,
ultimately it is the courts of law who has the authority to enforce the rule of law. Dicey

4
 believed that the judiciary should be independent in every form, there should be no
external influence and impartiality. Hence, it is asserted that it is the most important pillar
of the rule of law.

This rule of law is of great significance in our country. There are many government bodies and
independent bodies delegating different sorts of authorized duties. The judicial and quasi-judicial
authority is such a body which analysis and considers the facts and laws and then delivers a
verdict. Such a body needs a privilege of immunity so that they can complete their obligation by
performing their duty. If any authorized individual of any rank or position, arbitrarily performs
their duty or goes beyond his authority then the said person will not qualify for any kind of
immunity and will be liable1.

One of the most important examples in the history of India was, Mrs. Indira Gandhi the then
Prime Minister of India’s example. She used arbitrary powers in one of the parliamentary
elections and was found guilty for the same. Which lead to her disqualification from the election
and it eventually led to proclamation of Emergency in India. This is one of the most important
examples of prevalence of rule of law in our country.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICER PROTECTION ACT 1850

The origin of the privilege of judicial immunity is dated back to the era of Sir coke. In the case of
Floyd and Barker, Sir Edward Coke realized the need of judicial immunity for the judges of the
higher courts. Sir Coke advocated that, in every litigation there is going to be a winning party
and a losing party. The losing party will try to blame the judge by creating some sort of
controversy. In such a situation the independence and the will of the judge will be jeopardized.
Therefore, to protect the judge and other concerned authority is the duty of legislative. Hence,
the concept of providing immunity to judicial authorities was introduced.

In India, the earliest legislative provision with this regard was, The Judicial officer Protection
Act 1850. This act was brought in to give protection to judges against civil actions.

Section 1 of the Judicial Officer Protection Act 1850 reads: No judge, justice of the peace,
magistrate, collector, or any other person acting judicially, can be sued in any civil court for any

1
Law Corner. Analysis – Judicial, Quasi- Judicial, Parental, Quasi-Parental Acts. Law Corner. Oct 17, 2020.
https://lawcorner.in/analysis-judicial-quasi-judicial-parental-quasi-parental-acts/.

5
act done or ordered to be done by him in discharge of his judicial duties. There will be no
liability to suit any officer executing warrants or orders or any authorities acting judicially, for
official acts, done with good faith. And no person or officer issuing or executing such warrant
made be any judge, justice of the peace, magistrate, collector, or any other person acting
judicially, can be sued in any civil court2.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGES (PROTECTION) ACT 1985.

The 104th law commission report made the suggestion of amending The Judicial Officer
Protection Act 1850. The report was formed under the supervision of Mr., K.K. Mathew, the
chairman of the Law commission of India. The report made the certain recommendations, which
was later accepted by the parliament. Consequently, the parliament took the suggestion and
enacted the Judge (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3 is of the most important and relevant
provisions of the act.

Section 3(1)- According to this section, no civil or criminal proceedings should be entertained
against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, or for anything or word committed, done or
spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or discharging his judicial or official duty or
function.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS.

· Anderson v. Gorrie –

Facts of the case- An action was bought against a judge for allegations of malicious
conduct.Judgement- The court held that, no action lies for acts done or words spoken by a judge
by a judge in the exercise of his judicial office, although his motive is malicious 3. And the acts or

2
Justice K Sreedhar Rao. Can Judges Get Blanket Protection? INDIA LEGAL. Aug 22, 2016.
https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/legal-eye-articles/judges-protection-high-court-president/.
3
R.C. Evans. Damages for Unlawful Administrative Action: The remedy for Misfearance in Public office.
Cambridge University Press. Jan 17, 2008.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/damages-for-
unlawful-administrative-action-the-remedy-for-misfeasance-in-public-
office/E34983A8178A0893480AC214E78412F0.

6
words are done or spoken in the honest exercise of his office. The immunity was given to the
judge4.

· Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee-

Facts of the case- The plaintiff was detained on the allegations of participating in communal
riots.

Judgement: The Supreme court stated that the detention was made with malafied intention in
exercise of the jurisdiction.

Judgement- The SDM was found to be guilty and an order to pay the damages was held.

· In the case of, Re McC v. Mullan

Facts of the case- The magistrate passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with
the statutory provisions, which required him to inform the offender of the right to legal aid.

Judgement- The immunity was given to magistrate.

· In the case of Sirros v Moore,

Facts of the case: The plaintiff visited the United Kingdom as an alien, he was found and
recommended for deportation for breach of aliens’ order 1953, although the judge added that the
plaintiff should not be detained, pending the home secretary’s decision. The circuit court
dismissed the appeal however, ordered the police to detain him. The plaintiff sued the defendant
for false imprisonment and assault.

Judgement- The defendant was immunized from the liability.

· Rahendra Baglari v. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate – In this case the court
held that, judicial authorities are protected from being sued from civil or criminal matters,
in
respect to acts done and orders passed in the course of their judicial functioning.

4
Sanjeev Sirohi. Uttrakhand HC Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Sitting HC Judge Lok Pal Singh As Not
Maintainable. Legal Service India. Sep 18, 2018.
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1071/26/Uttarakhand-HC-Dismisses-Contempt-Petition-Against-
Sitting-HC-Judge-Lok-Pal-Singh-As-Not-Maintainable

7
CAN LIABILITY OF THE AUTHORITIES BE ASCERTAINED.

Yes, the liability of the Judicial and Quasi-Judicial authorities can be ascertained. For the
legitimate application of Rule of the, it is vital that every citizen should owes a duty toward
every other person. Every person from having the highest authority in the country, to the person
holding negligible amount of authority or power, should be treated, protected equally and they
should also bear the amount of responsibility equally. However, to determine the smooth running
of the society, some of the authorities are given certain immunities from the liability. However,
blanket protection is not given to these authorities. They have to act according to the law
prescribed, in case they fail to act according to the procedures and goes beyond their authority, in
that case the immunity is not provided to them. The judges and other empowered authorities
must act according to the code of ethics and should not act maliciously. Article 124(4) mentions
procedure to remove a judge of Supreme court in case of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
Article 218 of the constitution reads, that the application of article 124 (4) and (5) should be
applicable to High court judges, as they are applicable to the Supreme court judges. Section 3 (2)
of the Judges (Inquiry) act, 1986 mentions guidelines for forming an investigation committee.

CONCLUSION

The liability of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities can be ascertained. The Rule of law
prevails in our country and it is the very foundation of a democratic country. However, providing
the authorities with privilege of immunity is also very necessary. In the absence of such a
concept, the independence of the judiciary can be affected. This immunity is only given when the
authorities work according to the prescribed law and does not goes beyond the prescribed law
and uses ultra vires powers. The immunity given to the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities
must not be used a sword, it should be used as a shield for the community. According to the rule
of law, every person irrespective of their rank and position would be answerable if the acts done
by him is without any legal justification. No person can be held liable or made to suffer, if the
acts committed by him has a proper legal justification. According to Dicey, the power should
never be concentrated because it leads to arbitrariness which eventually leads to violation of law.

8
9