Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 19
repealedJudge
The word “Judge” denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or who is one of a body of persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment.
Why this exists
The IPC uses the word 'Judge' in several offences (like those about corrupt judges or contempt-related acts), so it needed a functional definition. Instead of relying only on job titles, the drafters wanted the law to cover anyone who actually exercises judicial decision-making power — including tribunal members, panel adjudicators, or quasi-judicial officers — so that the substance of the function, not just the label, matters.
How courts read it
Indian courts have generally read this definition broadly and functionally, holding that authorities such as arbitrators, tribunal members, or statutory adjudicating officers can qualify as 'Judges' under the IPC if their decisions have the finality described, even if their official title is different (e.g., 'Presiding Officer' or 'Member').
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only people officially called 'Judge' count as judges under Indian law.
Fact: Under IPC Section 19, anyone legally empowered to give a final (or near-final) decision in a legal case counts as a 'Judge', regardless of their official title. - Myth: A group or panel can never be considered a 'Judge'.
Fact: The section specifically includes bodies of people who together have the power to give such judgments, so panels or tribunals can qualify.