Judicial & Quasi Judicial Authority as a Defense in Tort Law 

There is an interesting little act - it is only one page in length and has only one section. The footnote section is bigger than the actual act itself.
It is called the JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT of 1850 - and this act is the basis of ‘Judicial & Quasi-Judicial Authority’ as a defense in tort law.
Judicial authority is exercised by judges and magistrates and quasi-judicial authority is exercised by bodies like arbitration panels or tribunal boards - who exercise judicial powers in specific jurisdictions.
This act says that Judges, magistrates and others acting in a judicial capacity are not liable to be sued in civil court for actions performed as part of their judicial duties.
This judicial immunity applies regardless of whether the action was within or outside the official's jurisdiction, as long as the official believed, in good faith, that they had the power or the jurisdiction to perform the act.
And this immunity extends to officers of the court and other officials, who are required to execute lawful orders issued by judicial officials.
But there are some restrictions to this immunity.
If a judicial official is acting mala fide and knowingly outside their jurisdiction, immunity will not apply.
If the judicial official is performing an administrative act - like issuing a warrant - and not a judicial function, the immunity will not apply.
And the act clearly states ‘cannot be sued in a civil court’, so this is only immunity against civil lawsuits and not against criminal prosecution.
In the Sailajanand Pande v. Suresh Chandra Gupta case, the magistrate acting mala fide, illegally and outside his jurisdiction, ordered the arrest of the plaintiff.
The Court held that he was not protected under the Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, and was, therefore, liable for the wrong of false imprisonment.
In the State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram case, the Judicial Magistrate signed an order for the arrest of the plaintiffs, who had been acquitted by the High Court.
It was held that the magistrate had acted negligently and also, he was only exercising an executive function while issuing warrants and not a judicial function. Therefore, he was not protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act.