Section 3. Additional protection to Judges
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.
How courts have applied section 3
- Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 protects judicial officers for acts done while discharging official duties.1
- A revenue officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings answers the description of a 'Judge'.2
- Every proceeding of a Labour Court is a judicial proceeding and therefore a legal proceeding.3
- A judicial officer cannot be impleaded as a party when he has not performed any executive function.4
- An award rendered on the judicial side under the Motor Vehicles Act involves no willful disobedience and is not civil contempt.5
- The protection is not absolute; where a Tahsildar ought to have verified the Patwari's report against departmental records, the protection did not apply.6
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern whether Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 bars or protects against civil and criminal proceedings against persons acting in official or judicial capacity, and how courts applied that protection in quashing petitions and civil suits. Courts held that the Act was enacted to protect judicial officers for acts done while discharging their official duties, and that a trial court taking cognizance without acknowledging this protection erred in law. The protection was applied to revenue officials acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, such as a Nayab Tehsildar executing an ejectment order and a Consolidation Officer, and to a judicial officer's acts in open court.7,8,1,9,10
Courts in these orders held that acts performed in discharge of official or judicial duty attract the protection of Section 3, especially where the act is judicial in nature and subject to appeal or revision. Every proceeding of a Labour Court is a judicial proceeding and hence a legal proceeding, so the Presiding Officer is protected. A judicial officer cannot be impleaded as a party where he has not performed any executive function, and all judicial functions can only be challenged by way of appeal or revision. Judges who decide a matter are not required to defend their orders before the High Court. A revenue officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings answers the description of a 'Judge'. An award rendered on the judicial side under the Motor Vehicles Act involves no willful disobedience and is not civil contempt.7,8,4,3,11,2,5
However, the protection was not absolute in these judgements. Where a Tahsildar, though acting in official capacity in approving a Patwari's report, ought to have verified it against departmental records, the case did not fall within the protection and the quashing petition was dismissed. Similarly, where prima facie there was some element of cheating in a sale transaction, the petitioner-Tahsildar's plea failed because the issues were matters of investigation. In one matter, legal contentions including a bar under Section 3 of the Act were held not open for consideration at the final-report stage, some being possible only after trial. In other cases, courts declined to interfere where a trial court had returned a suit considering Section 3 of the Act, and where the petitioners had already availed of remedies such as appeal.6,12,13,14,1,5
The scope of the protection was also examined in relation to other provisions. A person who was formerly a public servant was covered, and prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duty was held to require previous sanction. A judicial officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is doubly protected by Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of the Act. In one judgement, the court held that a sale of evacuee property contrary to Government instructions would expose the seller to service-law penalties, not forgery, and that attestation of mutation is for fiscal purposes and not a 'transfer'. However, in another judgement, the petitioner's argument that there was a bar under Section 3 of the Act was rejected, and the court held that prima facie some element of cheating was involved.2,15,9,7,12,6
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Himachal Pradesh HC: appeal against conviction u/S 420/120-B IPC and S.13(2) PC Act (evacuee property sold via bogus sale certificate; mutation attested) allowed; acquittal. Sale certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) in official capacity is not a 'false document' u/S 464 IPC;
AllowedOpenQuashing of FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance refused; Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC; IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B; prima facie cognizable offence; mini trial; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani; G.
DismissedOpenJudges (Protection) Act 1985 Section 3 bar on civil suit against Tehsildar; Nayab Tehsildar as Judge and Revenue Court (Sections 11, 31, 248 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959); Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC plaint rejection; compensation claim Rs.
DisposedOpenPatna HC, CRL.M. No.1897/2022, decided 21-01-2026 (CAV 31.10.2025), Sandeep Kumar, J. — Quashing of sanction order dt. 28.12.2020 (ss.420/467/468/471/120-B IPC) and F.I.R. Kadamkuan P.S. Case 238/2014 qua petitioner S.
AllowedOpenSection 482 Cr.P.C. quashing refused; Consolidation Officer prosecuted for allotment of State land (FIR 266/2013, PS Dankaur; charge-sheet 30-B dated 31.03.2015; Case No. 9044 of 2015, CJM Gautam Budh Nagar); disputed questions of fact not examinable under Section 482; prima facie test applied per State of Haryana v.
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.07.2025 of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally in OS(SR) No. 535 of 2025 returning the plaintiff's suit without numbering it — Suit for damages against the respondent, a Junior Civil Judge at Suryapet District, alleging…
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
Quashing of vigilance charge sheet/final report; VC 08/2013/TSR VACB Thrissur; C.C.No.7 of 2022; PC Act S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2); IPC S.120B; Bhajan Lal parameters under S.482 CrPC; P. Satyanarayana Murthy (proof of demand); res gestae S.10 Evidence Act; KVAT compounding tax reduction; Nano Excel Enterprises;
DismissedOpenQuashing of charge sheet; Prevention of Corruption Act s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); IPC s.120B criminal conspiracy; VACB Thrissur VC 08/2013/TSR; C.C.No.7/2022 Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Thrissur; M/s.Nano Excel Enterprises compounding tax reduction Rs.13,06,29,613 to Rs.7,00,68,469;
AllowedOpenHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; COCP-2215-2025 (O&M); decided 07.05.2025; Alka Sarin, J.; contempt petition under S.12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against MACT Rewari judicial officer for award relying on overruled FAO-5613-2017 order; judicial award not civil contempt;
DismissedOpenHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, COCP-2441-2020(O&M), Court On Its Own Motion v. Rajiv Rattan (then District Magistrate, Sonepat), decided 14.11.2025 by Nidhi Gupta, J.
DisposedOpenGurmeet Kaur v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-22305-2025, Punjab & Haryana HC, 28.04.2025, Namit Kumar J. Section 528 BNSS petition seeking direction to Family Court judge (impleaded as respondent No.2) to decide pending Section 340/195 CrPC perjury complaint CRM19/2023 arising from dismissed Section 125 interim maintenance…
DismissedOpenJudges (Protection) Act 1985 Section 3; judicial immunity of Presiding Officer, Labour Court Shimla; FIR application against a Judge; Section 156(3) CrPC application dismissed, no cognizable offence; Section 175(3) BNSS discretionary power to direct FIR;
DismissedOpen
CRMP 3015/2025 Chhattisgarh HC 26.09.2025: FIR and charge-sheet quashed in cousin-vs-cousin land mutation dispute. Keywords: Section 528 BNSS; quashing of FIR; inherent powers; civil dispute given criminal cloak; abuse of process; mutation; Additional Tehsildar; revenue court;
AllowedOpenChhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, author; Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) — common order disposing of Cr.M.P. No. 551/2024 (by Tahsildar Pratik Kumar Jaisawal) and Cr.M.P. No. 636/2024 (by seller Rampyari) seeking quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
DisposedOpenQuashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; FIR Crime No. 0038/2024, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur; JMFC Surajpur order dated 16.01.2024 on Section 156(3) application; offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC; sale of government land on lease, Khasra No. 238, Village Dumariya, Tahsil Bhiyathan;
DisposedOpenQuashing of FIR/charge-sheet/criminal proceedings refused — Section 528 BNSS, Article 226 Constitution, Section 482 CrPC — retired Tahsildar/Tehsildar of Dongargarh prosecuted under Sections 420/34 IPC (cheating, common intention) for mutation order in favour of co-accused Rajeev Mahule — collusion/conspiracy…
DismissedOpenSection 197 Cr.PC previous sanction for prosecution of public servants; trial without sanction void ab initio; Circle Officer mutation order; Section 482 Cr.PC quashing of cognizance; Judges (Protection) Act 1985 Sections 2 and 3 protection to quasi-judicial authority; protest petition treated as complaint;
AllowedOpenRevision petitioner, a newly appointed Assistant Commissioner, challenged the Trial Magistrate's order taking cognizance of defamation charges against her during a court hearing. The High Court held that the petitioner was a judicial officer protected under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
DisposedOpen
Show 2 more
Search terms: Section 197 Cr.PC previous sanction public servant prosecution; Section 482 Cr.PC inherent power quash proceedings; Judges (Protection) Act 1985 Section 2 definition of Judge; Section 3 additional protection bar on civil/criminal proceedings; Circle Officer mutation order quasi-judicial authority;
AllowedOpenAn Assistant Commissioner facing a VACB FIR for a tax assessment allegedly favouring a company sought quashing on Judges (Protection) Act grounds. Holding assessment orders under KVAT Act are legal proceedings by a 'Judge', and no material showed extraneous motives, the court held the protection applied and quashed…
AllowedOpen