Contempt

Contempt

It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence and it is in public interest also that no action can lie against a Judge of a Court of Record for a judicial act done by the Judge.

The remedy of the aggrieved party against such an order is to approach the higher forum through appropriate proceedings.

This immunity is essential to enable the Judges of the Court of Record to discharge their duties without fear or favour, through remaining within the bounds of their jurisdiction.

Immunity from any civil or criminal action or a charge of contempt of Court is is essential for maintaining independence of the judiciary and for the strength of the administration of justice.

The following passage from - Oswald’s Contempt of Court:

‘An action will not lie against a Judge of a Court of Record for a wrongful commitment in the exercise of his judicial duties, any more than for an erroneous judgment. But the Divisional Court refused to strike out as disclosing no cause of action a statement of clam in an action for malicious prosecution brought against certain Judges of the Supermen Court of Trinidad for having of their own motion, and without any evidence, caused the plaintiff to be prosecuted and committed to prison for an alleged contempt of the SC in forwarding to the Governor of the Colony for transmission to the Queen in Council a petition of appeal complaining of the oppressive conduct of the defendants as Judges.

“If any Judge exercises his jurisdiction from ‘malicious motives he has been guilty of a gross ‘dereliction of duty’.

And after saying that a Judge was liable to be removed from his office for such conduct, Lord Eaher went on to say that the common law clearly was that no action lay against a Judge of a Court of Record ‘for doing something within his jurisdiction but ‘doing it maliciously and contrary to good faith’.