In the case noted below an Additional Subordinate Jude dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant and decreed that of the then defendant. During the pendency of the decree holder’s petition for execution of the decree and that of the appellant for its stay, the plaintiff/appellant issued a notice to the judge inter alia alleging that in his judgment he had created new facts by making third version without evidence; that he had intentionally, with bad faith and maliciously, distorted the existing oral and documentary evidence; that he had maintained different standards in the same judgment; that he had side-tracked the binding direct decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court; and that in the circumstances he could be said to have acted with mala fide exercise of powers without jurisdiction and therefore, he was liable for damages for the loss incurred by the appellant and for the injury. The Supreme Court, interpreting the provisions of Sec. 1, Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850 held as under---
“If the judicial officer is found to have been acting in the discharge of his judicial duties, then, in order to exclude him from the protection of Sec. 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act the complainant has to establish that--- (i) the judicial officer complained against was acting without any jurisdiction whatsoever; and (ii) he was acting without good faith in believing himself to have jurisdiction. The expression “jurisdiction” in this section has not been used in the limited sense of the term, as connoting the ‘power’ to do or order to do the particular act complained of, but is used in a wide sense meaning ‘generally the authority of the judicial officer to act in the matters’. Therefore, if the judicial officer had the general authority to enter upon the enquiry into the cause, action, petition or other proceedings in the course of which the impugned act was done or ordered by him in his judicial capacity, the act, even if erroneous, will still be within his ‘jurisdiction’, and the mere fact that it was erroneous will not put it beyond his ‘jurisdiction’. Error in the exercise of jurisdiction will not put in beyond his ‘jurisdiction’. Error in the exercise of jurisdiction is not to be confused with lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the cause of proceeding. Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant was held proper by the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court of India
Rachapudi Subba Rao vs The Advocate-General, Andhra ... on 10 December, 1980
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 755, 1981 SCR (2) 320
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh
