The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) consolidates and codifies the laws related to general exceptions, including protections provided for judicial acts. These exceptions are outlined to ensure that individuals, particularly those acting in an official capacity, are not wrongfully held liable for actions done under certain conditions.

Section 15 of BNS: Act of a Judge When Acting Judicially

Provision: Section 15 of the BNS provides immunity to judges for acts done in their judicial capacity. This section ensures that judges are not held criminally liable for decisions made or actions taken in good faith while discharging their judicial functions. This immunity applies even if there is an error in their judgment or if the court lacks jurisdiction.

Explanation:

• The provision is essential for maintaining the independence of the judiciary. Without such protection, judges might be hesitant to make bold and impartial decisions out of fear of personal liability.
• Immunity is only applicable when the judge acts in "good faith" and within the scope of their judicial authority. Any act beyond this scope or done with malice would not be covered under this section.

Example:
If a judge orders the detention of an individual based on the evidence presented, and it later turns out that the evidence was fabricated, the judge would not be held liable for the wrongful detention as long as the decision was made in good faith.

Suppose a judge orders the attachment of property in a civil dispute, but it is later determined that the court did not have the jurisdiction to do so. The judge will still be protected from liability under Section 15, provided the act was done in the bona fide exercise of judicial duties.
Relevant Case Law:

• Anwar Hussain vs Ajay Kumar Mukherjee (1965): The Supreme Court upheld that judicial officers are protected from criminal prosecution for actions done within the scope of their judicial capacity, reiterating the principle that such immunity is vital for the functioning of the judiciary.
• R. D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma (2000): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judges are shielded under judicial immunity as long as their actions are within the limits of their duties and performed without malice.

Section 16 of BNS: Act Done Pursuant to Judgment or Order of Court

Provision:

This section provides protection to individuals who execute orders or judgments of the court. If a person acts according to a court's directive, they are not held liable even if the court lacked jurisdiction, provided they acted in good faith believing that the court had the authority to issue such an order.

Explanation:

This provision ensures that individuals such as police officers or court officials can execute court orders without the fear of legal repercussions. This is critical in maintaining law and order, as the effectiveness of judicial directives depends on their enforcement. Good faith plays a crucial role here. If an individual knew that the order was illegal or beyond the court's jurisdiction, then the immunity would not apply.

Example:

• A police officer arrests an individual based on a warrant issued by a court. Later, it is discovered that the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue the warrant. Since the police officer acted on the order in good faith, he would not be held liable under Section 16.
• Suppose a court orders the eviction of tenants from a property, and the bailiff carries out the order. If it turns out that the court exceeded its jurisdiction, the bailiff would not face liability as he was merely implementing the court's decision.

Relevant Case Law:

• State of Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1998): The Supreme Court emphasized that court orders must be respected and followed. The ruling underlined that if an order is executed in good faith, the person acting on the court's direction is protected from any legal consequences.
• State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh (1999): This judgment reiterated that actions taken pursuant to judicial orders, even if erroneous, are protected under the law, provided there was no malicious intent.

Importance of Judicial Immunity and Protection of Court Officials

The protection offered to judges and court officials is fundamental to the justice system. Without such safeguards, the judicial process could be hampered, as judges and officers might hesitate to carry out their duties fearing personal repercussions. However, these protections are not absolute and come with conditions, particularly around the concept of "good faith."

Examples and Illustrations:

Judicial Immunity in Action:

Illustration: A magistrate, in the course of his duties, passes a verdict in a criminal case based on the evidence available, acquitting the accused. Later, it is found that the magistrate overlooked a crucial piece of evidence that would have otherwise led to a conviction. The magistrate is protected under Section 15 of the BNS, as the verdict was delivered in good faith within the scope of judicial duty.

Execution of Court Orders:

Illustration: A court issues an injunction order preventing the sale of a disputed property, and the court officer enforces it by marking the property as restricted for sale. If the injunction order is later declared invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, the court officer is not held liable as they acted in good faith under the order of the court.

Good Faith and Lack of Malice:

Illustration: A judge issues a search warrant for a premises based on a complaint of illegal activities. It is later discovered that the complaint was false and maliciously intended to frame the property owner. As long as the judge issued the warrant in good faith and based on the information provided, they are protected under Section 15 of BNS.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments:

1. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra (1966): The Supreme Court held that the judiciary should function without the fear of personal liability for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The judgment clarified that actions taken by judges in their judicial capacity are immune unless proven to be outside the jurisdiction or carried out with malice.
2. P. D. Shamdasani vs Central Bank of India (1952): This case highlighted that judicial officers enjoy immunity when their actions fall within the limits of their judicial role. It underscored that judicial independence is integral to justice, and such immunity is a necessary protection against frivolous litigation targeting judges.

Conclusion:
The general exceptions under the BNS related to judicial acts emphasize the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. These sections ensure that judges and court officials can execute their duties without fear of retribution, provide they act in good faith and within their official capacity.