Section 15

This provision continues a rule found in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 77), which itself reflects a long-standing common law principle: judges must be free to decide cases without fear of being personally prosecuted for honest mistakes made while exercising judicial functions. Without such protection, judges might hesitate to make firm or unpopular rulings, fearing criminal cases against them every time a decision was later found to be legally incorrect. The law distinguishes between honest errors of judgment and misconduct or bad faith, protecting only the former.

Indian courts have generally held that this protection applies only to acts done 'judicially'—meaning while performing the functions of a judge in a case properly before them—and not to actions taken outside that role, such as personal misconduct or clearly malicious acts. Courts have emphasized that the judge must have acted in good faith, meaning with honest belief and due care, not recklessly or with knowledge that the power did not exist. Cases interpreting the identical IPC Section 77 have shaped how this BNS provision is understood, since the wording is unchanged.

• Myth: This provision means judges can never be punished for anything they do in court.
  Fact: It only protects honest, good-faith judicial acts. If a judge acts with bad intent, outside their judicial role, or without genuine belief in their authority, this protection does not apply.
• Myth: If a judge's decision is later overturned on appeal, it means the judge committed an offence.
  Fact: Being legally wrong is different from committing a crime. Appeals correct legal errors; this provision protects judges from criminal liability for such honest errors made while acting judicially.