Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Phrase:JUDICIAL OFFICERS' PROTECTION ACT Page:2

Apr 24 1973

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.Vs. State of Kerala and Anr ...

  • Decided on : 24-Apr-1973

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1

... Judicial Committee held that the members of the Tribunal held judicial office and were judicial officers within Section 55 of the Ceylon Constitution. They found that there was a plain conflict between Section 55 of the Constitution and Section 41 of the Bribery Amendment Act under which the panel was appointed.213. Then the Judicial ... protected by the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951, the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act, 1955 and the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964. The validity of the Mysore Reforms Act, 1962 as amended by Act 14 of 1965 was also challenged on the same grounds. The Punjab Act and the Mysore Act were included in the Ninth Schedule. It was common case that if the Seventeenth Amendment Act adding the Punjab Act ... judicial office and were judicial officers within Section 55 of the Ceylon Constitution. They found that there was a plain conflict between Section 55 of the Constitution and Section 41 of the Bribery Amendment Act under which the panel was appointed.213. Then the Judicial Committee examined the effect of this conflict. After setting out Section 18, Section 29(1) and Section 29(2)(a), the Judicial ...

Apr 14 1890

In re Neagle

  • Decided on : 14-Apr-1890

Court : US Supreme Court

... hands of one of the cabinet officers of the President, and their compensation is provided by acts of Congress. The same may be said of the district attorneys of the United States, who prosecute and defend the claims of the government in the courts. The legislative branch of the government can only protect the judicial officers by the enactment of laws for that ... have protected the revenue officers of the government against any arrest made under the pretensions of state authority without the aid of the act of 1833? Why, in 1842, when the third habeas corpus act was passed, could not the President of the United States, by virtue of the same self-executing powers of the executive, together with those of the judicial department, ... this court, in the division of the powers of government between the three great departments, executive, legislative and judicial, the judicial is the weakest for the purposes of self-protection and for the enforcement of the powers which it exercises. The ministerial officers through whom its commands must be executed are marshals of the United States, and belong emphatically to the ... of the judicial department, have enforced the international obligations of the government without any such act of Congress? It is a noteworthy fact in our history that whenever the exigencies of the country, from time to time, have required the exercise of executive and judicial power for the enforcement of the supreme authority of the United States government for the protection ...

Mar 26 1962

Baker v. Carr

  • Decided on : 26-Mar-1962

Court : US Supreme Court

... Clauses show. The problem under the Equal Protection Clause is no more intricate. See Lewis, Legislative Apportionment and the Federal Courts, 71 Harv.L.Rev. 1057, 1083-1084. There are, of course, some questions beyond judicial competence. Where the performance of a "duty" is left to the discretion and good judgment of an executive officer, the judiciary will not compel the ... as a datum contributing to the result, and despite the consequences in a heated federal-state controversy and the opposition of the other branches of the National Government, the judicial power acted to reverse the State Supreme Court. An example of similar isolation of a political question in the decision of a case is Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, ... of electoral strength may be suffered to exist immune from federal judicial review in States where they result from apportionment legislation consistent with state constitutions, the Tennessee Legislature may not abridge the rights which, on its face, its own constitution appears to give, without by that act denying equal protection of the laws. It is said that the law of Tennessee, ... . The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. MR. JUSTICE WHITAKER did not participate in the decision of this case. [ Footnote 1 ] Public Acts of Tennessee, c. 122 (1901), now Tenn.Code ...

Mar 11 1994

Kartar Singh Vs. State Of Punjab.

  • Decided on : 11-Mar-1994

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423

... judicial officers. They are the core members and floor level officers of the judicial service of the State exposed to direct public gaze, It is settled law that the High Court has exclusive control over judicial officers and the Governor should normally act according to the recommendation of the High Court. Even in respect of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank etc. of subordinate judicial officers ... Protection Force Act or Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act or Customs Act or Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is made admissible, the special procedure prescribed under this Act making a confession of a person indicted under the TADA Act given to a police officer admissible cannot be questioned, is misnomer because all the officials empowered to record statements under those special Acts are not police officers as per the judicial ... judicial and partly other does not in any way detract from the position that while acting as a Magistrate he is a judicial officer."Further, the Bench agreed with the view expressed by Bachawat, J. that a Magistrate holds a 'judicial office' dissenting from the view taken by Banerjee, J. that a Magistrate could not be said to hold judicial office ...

Jul 25 1991

K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

  • Decided on : 25-Jul-1991

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1991(3)SC198; (1992)IILLJ53bSC; 1991(2)SCALE150; (1991)3SCC655; [1991]3SCR189a

... judicial duty whether or not such judicial duty is performed within the limits of their jurisdiction. That has been provided under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Likewise, Section 77 IPC gives them protection from criminal liability for an act performed judicially. Section 77 states that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially ... protection from civil liability for any act done or ordered to be done by them in discharge of their judicial duty whether or not such judicial duty is performed within the limits of their jurisdiction. That has been provided under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Likewise, Section 77 IPC gives them protection from criminal liability for an act performed judicially ... protections afforded to Judges to preserve the independence of the judiciary. They have protection from civil liability for any act done or ordered to be done by them in discharge of their judicial duty whether or not such judicial duty is performed within the limits of their jurisdiction. That has been provided under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Likewise, Section 77 IPC gives them protection ...

Feb 19 1965

Anowar Hussain Vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Ors.

  • Decided on : 19-Feb-1965

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC1651; 1965CriLJ686

... the protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act. There was no plea in the written statement that the appellant was, in issuing the order for arrest of the respondent, acting in the discharge of his judicial duty and that on that account he was entitled to the protection of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. ... acted in discharge of his judicial duties, and be was on that account protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Act, in so far as it is material, provided:'No Judge, Magistrate, * * * Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act-done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial ... protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Deka, J., expressed a contrary opinion. The appeal was then referred to Mehrotra, J., who agreed with the opinion of Sarjoo Prasad, C J.8. In this appeal, the only question raised is that in ordering the arrest of the respondent the appellant acted in discharge of his judicial duties, and be was on that account protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act ... protected in respect of the acts done by him by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, the Court of First Instance, it appears, allowed that plea to be raised, and held that on the evidence it was clear that the appellant in issuing an order for arrest of the respondent had not acted in the discharge of his judicial duties, but merely as an executive officer ...

Jul 19 1996

Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India

  • Decided on : 19-Jul-1996

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)404; AIR1996SC2481; 1996CriLJ3274; JT1996(6)SC529; 1996(5)SCALE233; (1996)5SCC216; [1996]Supp3SCR677

... the Constitution and the laws and to administer justice in accordance therewith in tune with the oath of his office. The protection of Article 124(4) 121 211, the Judicial Officers Protection Act and the Judges (Protection) Act is to ensure independence to the judiciary. Threat to Judicial process is a challenge to the authority of the court or majesty of justice. It would be ex-facie ... oath of office taken by a Judge of this Court is not that he should allow every case or dismiss every case but only to uphold the Constitution and the laws and to administer justice in accordance therewith in tune with the oath of his office. The protection of Article 124(4) 121 211, the Judicial Officers Protection Act and the Judges (Protection) Act is to ensure ... of India gets no judicial protection unlike the President of India for being prosecuted even while Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi holds office as Chief Justice of India and is accordingly liable to prosecution. This bravado not only impinges upon the protection given by Article 124(4) of the Constitution and under relevant provisions of the Protection of Official Act ex facie it is ... under Section 12 of the Act.53. Item 7 relates to the imputation that the Chief Justice of India gets no judicial protection unlike the President of India for being prosecuted even while Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi holds office as Chief Justice of India and is accordingly liable to prosecution. This bravado not only impinges upon the protection given by Article 124 ...

Feb 20 1961

Monroe v. Pape

  • Decided on : 20-Feb-1961

Court : US Supreme Court

... about the same officer who, losing his temper, breaks all local regulations and beats the same suspect? If it be admitted that there is a significant difference between the situation of the individual injured by another individual and who, although the latter is an agent of the State, can claim from the State's judicial or administrative processes the same protection and ... police level. [ Footnote 49 ] We do not reach those policy considerations. Nor do we reach the constitutional question whether Congress has the power to make municipalities liable for acts of its officers that violate the civil rights of individuals. The response of the Congress to the proposal to make municipalities liable for certain actions being brought within federal purview by ... demonstrate that their Page 365 U. S. 244 demand is for legislative, not judicial, response. We cannot expect to create an effective means of protection for human liberties by torturing an 1871 statute to meet the problems of 1960. Of an enactment like the Civil Rights Act, dealing with the safeguarding and promotion of individual freedom, it is especially relevant to ... protect the rights of the citizen, whereas, before, no such right was given to save the citizen from the violation of any of his rights by State Legislatures, and the only remedy was a judicial one when the case arose." Id. at 577. In my view, these considerations put in serious doubt the conclusion that 1983 was limited to state-authorized unconstitutional acts ...

Dec 24 1964

H.W.F. D'Souza Vs. Chandrikasingh

  • Decided on : 24-Dec-1964

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1966MP223

... the suit be dismissed as he is a judicial officer and is protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. The trial Judge has postponed decision of that issue saying that it would be decided after recording evidence of both the parties inasmuch as before any protection is given to the defendant, the fact that he had jurisdiction to do the acts complained of is to be established and ... the plaintiff's arrest.5. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act (No. XVIII of 1850) enacts that no Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of ... should be dismissed as he is protected and that there can be no enquiry whatever as to malice or otherwise, nor even as to absence of an occasion to effect the plaintiff's arrest.5. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act (No. XVIII of 1850) enacts that no Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to ... act judicially.'In that case, Franklin v. Minister of Town andCountry Planning (1947) 2 All ER 289, wasreferred to. See also Sharp v. Wakefield 1891AC 173 (179) and Labour Relations Board v.John East Iron Works Ltd., 1948 AC 134 (149).9. As I read Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, it seems clear that the words 'in the discharge of his judicial ...

Apr 30 1951

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath

  • Decided on : 30-Apr-1951

Court : US Supreme Court

... for doing it, the available alternatives to the procedure that was followed, the protection implicit in the office of the functionary whose conduct is challenged, the balance of hurt complained of and good accomplished -- these are some of the considerations that must enter into the judicial judgment. Page 341 U. S. 164 Applying them to the immediate situation, ... for the reason among others that they have a right to conduct their admittedly legitimate political, charitable and business operations free from unjustified governmental defamation. Otherwise, executive officers could act lawlessly with impunity. And, assuming that the President may constitutionally authorize the promulgation of the Attorney General's list, I further agree with MR. JUSTICE BURTON ... did not think that the Attorney General's procedure was indispensable for the protection of the public interest. The McCarran Act, passed under circumstances certainly not more serene than when the Loyalty Order was issued, grants organizations a full administrative hearing, subject to judicial review, before they are required to register as "Communist action" or "Communist front." [ ... to challenge the assessment on the ground that it denied equal protection of the laws. [ Footnote 3/8 ] Compare the decisions which hold that certain executive officers are not liable in suits for damages for erroneous or even malicious conduct in office, so long as they are acting within the scope of the authority given them. Spalding v. ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //