Gurugram court junks IPS officer’s suit against judge for 'defamatory' remarks

A Gurugram court has dismissed a civil suit of Haryana IPS officer Krishan Kumar Rao, seeking damages and compensation, against Additional District and Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat for passing alleged “defamatory” remarks against him in a bail matter.

The remarks against Rao were made in the anticipatory bail order of another IPS officer, Dheeraj Kumar Setia, in the Gurugram multicrore theft case on February 14, 2022. There are 26 accused in the high-profile case, ranging from doctors to gangsters to police officials. It had surfaced in 2021 when Rao was Commissioner of Police (CP) at Gurugram. Presently, he is serving as Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Rohtak Range.

The judge’s remarks were about gangsters and kingpins allegedly visiting the office of DCP (Crime) with bags of Rs 2.5 crore while the CP — having the adjacent office — was unaware of it.

Rao alleged that the judge passed the “disparaging and uncalled for remarks” against him and his functioning, which had no bearing on the adjudication of the anticipatory bail matter case as neither his work nor his conduct was in question before the judge. He added that the judge had an “ulterior motive to scandalise the matter” and to “target” him.

On Rao’s Civil Writ Petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had expunged the judge’s remarks on September 4, 2023.

While dismissing Rao’s civil suit, Additional Civil Judge, Gurugram, Vikram Jit Singh, said it was clear from the perusal of Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1985, that “no Court can entertain or continue a civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him while discharging his official or Judicial duty or function”. He added that the present civil suit “is barred” under the Judges Protection Act.

“The immunity applies to both trial judges and higher judiciary members, including Hon’ble Supreme Court Judges and Hon’ble High Courts’ Judges. Consequently, a Judge cannot be held liable for any act done in good faith while performing their judicial functions,” the judgment added.

The judge further stated, “This protection covers not only judicial orders and judgments but also actions taken during the conduct of proceedings and in the interpretation of laws. At the same time, the Act does not protect Judges if they act outside their Judicial capacity or engage in corrupt practices.”