Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 78
repealedAct done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court
Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Why this exists
This section protects people — like police officers, jail staff, or ordinary citizens — who act on a court's direction. Courts sometimes make mistakes about their own jurisdiction, but the person carrying out the order usually cannot be expected to independently verify the court's legal authority. The law shields such good-faith compliance so that people aren't punished for trusting the judicial system, while still requiring genuine good faith (not blind or careless belief).
How courts read it
Indian courts have generally held that the protection under Section 78 applies only when the person acted honestly and with due care, genuinely believing the court had jurisdiction — mere claim of good faith is not enough; it must be shown through reasonable conduct. Courts have distinguished this from Section 77 (acts of judges), noting Section 78 covers those who execute or act upon judicial orders, such as police officers or jail officials, rather than the judges themselves.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Section 78 protects anyone who simply says they 'didn't know' the court lacked power.
Fact: Courts require genuine good faith — meaning honest and reasonably careful belief, not just a claimed lack of knowledge. - Myth: This section protects judges themselves for wrong judgments.
Fact: Section 78 protects people who act upon or follow a court's order (like officials), not the judges who pass the order — judges are covered separately under Section 77.