Can Judicial Officers Be Prosecuted for Acts Done in Official Capacity?

The role of judicial officers is foundational to the rule of law. Judges are entrusted with the administration of justice, a function that inherently demands independence, neutrality, and accountability. However, a question of profound constitutional and legal importance often arises—can judicial officers be prosecuted for acts done in their official capacity?

Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards for Judicial Officers

Constitutional Context

India’s judicial system draws heavily from the British common law tradition, where judicial independence is sacrosanct. The Indian Constitution ensures this through:

• Article 50: Mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive.
• Article 211: Prohibits State Legislatures from discussing the conduct of High Court and Supreme Court judges.
• Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b): Provide the only constitutional mechanisms for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges through impeachment.

However, for subordinate judicial officers, the primary statutory protection comes from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

Section 197 of CrPC (Section 218 BNSS) – Bar on Prosecution Without Sanction

Section 197 of the CrPC (Section 218 BNSS) provides:

“When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance… except with the previous sanction…”

Key Elements

• The act must have been done in official capacity.
• The judicial officer must have acted in good faith or purporting to act as part of their duties.
• Prior sanction of the appropriate government is a precondition for prosecution.

Thus, mere allegations, especially stemming from disgruntled litigants, do not suffice.

Judicial Precedents on Immunity and Malafide Intent

1. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655

This landmark judgment held that even judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court could be prosecuted, but only with presidential sanction and in exceptional cases involving grave misconduct or corruption.

The Court emphasised the need to balance judicial independence with accountability, stating that prosecution should only be permitted where malafide is apparent and evidence is cogent.

2. R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1996) 1 SCC 478

Reiterated that acts done in discharge of official duty are protected, and sanction is essential unless the act is ultra vires and malicious.

M.P. High Court: Kamlesh Chaturvedi v. Saksham Adhikari (2025)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration and injunction concerning property allegedly inherited via a will. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the evidence presented, accepting a competing will from 1998. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking prosecution of the judicial officer who delivered the judgment, alleging bias, misuse of power, and collusion with the defendant and a handwriting expert.

Relief Sought

• Criminal prosecution of the presiding judge.
• Declaration that the judge acted in bad faith.
• Inquiry against the handwriting expert and advocate.

High Court’s Ruling

The Division Bench (Justice Anand Pathak & Justice Hirdesh) dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

• Judicial officers are protected under Section 197 CrPC.
• No malafide intent or cogent evidence was established.
• Remedies for the petitioner lie in appeal or review, not in prosecution.
• Allegations of professional misconduct by advocates must be addressed via the Bar Council.
• Expert evidence is within the discretionary domain of the court, not subject to writ interference.

Distinction Between Judicial Error and Misconduct

A wrong judgment or procedural irregularity does not constitute misconduct. Courts have consistently drawn a line between:

• Judicial acts within jurisdiction, even if erroneous → Protected
• Acts with demonstrable malice, corruption, or outside jurisdiction → May justify prosecution with sanction

This distinction is critical to prevent a chilling effect on the independence of judges.

Remedies Against Judicial Misconduct

When genuine misconduct arises, the following options are available:

1. Judicial Review and Appeal

• Corrects errors of law and fact.
• Ensures procedural fairness.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings

• Internal action via the High Court’s administrative jurisdiction.
• Conduct inquiries under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

3. Prosecution with Sanction

• Applicable only in cases of proven misconduct, fraud, or corruption.
• Requires prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC or Article 124/217 (as applicable).

Malafide and Exception to Immunity

While immunity is the rule, courts recognise exceptions. If the act:

• is motivated by personal interest,
• involves corrupt practices,
• is outside jurisdiction (e.g., issuing arrest warrants illegally),

Then, courts have allowed limited criminal or civil action, but always through due process.

Role of Litigants and Responsibilities

While judicial independence must be preserved, litigants must also act responsibly:

• Frivolous or motivated allegations against judges are punishable as contempt of court.
• Misuse of judicial forums to challenge judgments by criminalising judicial officers undermines public confidence in the system.

Conclusion