Author name: lawcodified@gmail.com

Act of Judge when acting judicially Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. Meaning: A Judge is not criminally liable for any act done while performing his judicial duties, if he acts either within his legal authority or in good faith believing that he has such authority under the law. This section protects judicial officers who act honestly and without malice, even if later it turns out that they exceeded their jurisdiction. Example: A Magistrate passes an order of arrest believing in good faith that the person is liable to be arrested under the LAW. Later, it is found that he had no such POWER. Since the Magistrate acted judicially and in good faith, he committed no offence under Section 15. Case Law: K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 AIR 958, 1991 SCR (3) 189) The Supreme Court held that a Judge is protected from criminal prosecution for acts done in the course of judicial duty, provided such acts were done in good faith and without corrupt motive. Principle: “A Judge acting honestly in the exercise of his judicial functions is not liable for any act done in good faith.” Conclusion: Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provides legal immunity to judges for acts done judicially and in good faith, ensuring independence of the judiciary and freedom from fear while discharging judicial duties.

  Act done by a person bound by law or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law “Law protects those who act in good faith under legal duty.” Meaning: If a person performs an act honestly believing that the law requires him to do so — and that belief arises from a mistake of fact (and not a mistake of law) — then such an act is not an offence under Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This provision safeguards individuals who act in good faith under legal obligation or under a mistaken belief of fact that they are bound by law to perform such an act. Illustrations: Main Point Obedience to lawful authority and an honest mistake of fact provide legal protection against criminal liability. Relevant Case Law: State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh & Ors. (1981 AIR 1917, 1981 SCR (3) 294) In this case, the Supreme Court held that a public officer acting under the bona fide belief that he is performing his legal duty, and without any criminal intention, is protected under provisions similar to Section 14. The Court emphasized that good faith and reasonable belief are essential elements to claim protection under such sections. Conclusion: Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita embodies the principle that law does not punish an act done under a legal obligation or a genuine mistake of fact. It ensures protection for individuals performing their duties honestly and without malice.