Judicial and Quasi-judicial Authority under Law of Torts | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity Overview

General defences under tort law are accessible to all individuals claiming to have committed a tort. However, in addition to available defences, judicial officers and quasi-judicial authorities are granted a specific type of "immunity." It's crucial to differentiate between these authorities for a clearer understanding.

Judicial Authorities vs. Quasi-Judicial Bodies

• Judicial authorities, such as courts or judges, interpret laws, resolve disputes, and penalize lawbreakers. In contrast, quasi-judicial bodies possess powers akin to judicial bodies but are confined to specific areas of expertise. While judicial authorities may create new laws in extraordinary circumstances leading to Judicial Activism, quasi-judicial bodies are bound by existing laws.
• Immunity under tort law is necessary to prevent interference with their work processes. In various jurisdictions, civil matters exhibit diverse approaches, but a common understanding is maintained while reaching decisions.

Judicial Immunity Principles

When applying the defence of immunity, two key principles are considered:

1. The protection provided regarding actions taken should align with the words spoken.
2. Actions prompting the defence must fall within their jurisdiction and not be ultra vires.

For instance, in Stump v. Sparkman, the U.S. Supreme Court granted complete immunity to a judge who, within his jurisdiction, made a decision that was morally questionable but legally protected.

However, judicial immunity is not absolute. Decisions made within one's power (intra vires) are more likely to receive immunity, contrasting decisions made beyond their authority (ultra vires), as seen in the case of Harris v. Harvey.

Quasi-Judicial Immunity

• Courts extend immunity to quasi-judicial bodies, recognizing their quasi-judicial acts. Discretion and jurisdiction play vital roles in determining quasi-judicial immunity. For instance, in Hoppe v. Klapperich, a municipal court judge's actions beyond his jurisdiction led to a denial of immunity.
• While these immunities are crucial for the functioning of authorities, they must be carefully applied to prevent abuses of power. Accountability mechanisms ensure that immunity does not transform into impunity.