Doctrine of Judicial Immunity & Proper-Forum Rule Reaffirmed
(Commentary on Kamlesh Chaturvedi v. Saksham Adhikari, MP High Court, 16-06-2025)

1. Introduction

Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench
Coram : Justice Anand Pathak & Justice Hirdesh
Petitioner : Shri Kamlesh Chaturvedi (in person)
Respondents : (1) Ms. Saksham Adhikari – II Civil Judge (Junior Division)
(2) Ms. Harshita Soni – Additional Judge
(3) An Advocate (name suppressed)
(4) Mr. Sanjay Yadav – Hand-writing Expert
Date of Decision : 16 June 2025
Provision Invoked : Article 227, Constitution of India

The writ petition arose as a collateral attack on a civil judgment and decree dated 06-07-2024, whereby the petitioner’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction pertaining to agricultural land had been dismissed. Unwilling to follow the appellate route, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court alleging fraud, bias, collusion and conspiracy between the presiding judicial officers, the opposite advocate and the court-appointed handwriting expert. He sought directions for suspension, criminal prosecution and other drastic measures against all respondents.

The State resisted the petition, terming the allegations “bald, unsubstantiated and motivated”, and stressing the availability of adequate statutory remedies. The High Court agreed with the State and dismissed the petition, but not before setting out important principles on (i) the constitutional and statutory immunity enjoyed by judges acting judicially, and (ii) the circumscribed scope of writ jurisdiction when statutory appellate or disciplinary fora are in place.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held the writ petition non-maintainable as it essentially challenged a civil decree for which the proper remedy is an appeal.
• Serious allegations against judicial officers cannot be pursued through Article 227 without prima facie material and without complying with the safeguards laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Section 197 CrPC (requirement of prior sanction).
• Complaints against advocates lie before the State Bar Council / Bar Council of India; challenges to expert testimony must be agitated in appeal or revision within the civil process.
• No case of malafides or extraneous influence was discernible on the record; hence the prayer for criminal proceedings or departmental action was rejected.
• Petitioner was given liberty to avail statutory appellate remedies under the Civil Procedure Code or approach the Bar Council, as the case may be.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655
   Ratio : Judges can be subjected to criminal investigation for acts done in judicial capacity only after prior sanction from the competent authority (in that case, the President, upon the CJI’s advice).
   Relevance : The Court used this authority to underscore that sanction is a constitutional safeguard against frivolous or retaliatory prosecutions of judges. Since no such sanction was even sought, the present writ collapsed at the threshold.
2. Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure
   Although a statutory provision rather than a precedent, the Court relied on it in tandem with Veeraswami to buttress the shield of judicial immunity.
3. Article 226/227 Jurisprudence – While not naming individual cases, the Bench invoked the settled line of authorities (e.g. Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423) limiting supervisory writ jurisdiction over orders issued by civil courts. The governing theme is “self-restraint & alternative remedy”.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Nature of Relief Sought – The petitioner did not ask for certiorari against a specific order; instead, he demanded disciplinary/criminal action. Such reliefs fall outside Article 227, whose ambit is to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction, not to punish them.
2. Availability of Alternative Remedy – The civil procedure provides a full hierarchy: appeal → second appeal → revision/special leave. The Court reiterated the Proper-Forum Rule: extraordinary jurisdiction is not a substitute for ordinary remedies.
3. Judicial Immunity – Applying Section 197 CrPC and Veeraswami, the Bench held that bona-fide judicial acts, even if allegedly erroneous, are immune from criminal or civil liability unless the stringent pre-conditions are satisfied.
4. Lack of Prima Facie Material – The allegations of “collusion” were uncorroborated. The cross-examination excerpt relied upon by the petitioner was found inconclusive. Hence, the high burden for imputing malafides to a judge was not met.
5. Professional Accountability of Lawyers & Experts – Any alleged misconduct of respondent-advocate or handwriting expert is governed by sector-specific statutes (Advocates Act, Evidence Act). Writ court cannot assume both prosecutor and disciplinary authority roles.

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

• Deterrence Against Collateral Attacks – Litigants often attempt to bypass appeals by filing writs alleging conspiracy. The judgment sends a strong message that such tactics will invite summary dismissal.
• Strengthening Institutional Integrity – By reaffirming judicial immunity, the Court protects judicial independence from disgruntled litigants seeking punitive measures against judges.
• Clarificatory Value – Though not path-breaking, the ruling consolidates scattered principles into a coherent directive for the Madhya Pradesh bar and bench: grievances against (i) decrees –> file appeal, (ii) advocates –> approach Bar Council, (iii) experts –> challenge credibility in the same suit/appeal.
• Guide for Subordinate Courts – Trial judges can rely on this decision when faced with threats of writ petitions or criminal complaints aimed at influencing ongoing proceedings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction

The High Court’s constitutional power to keep subordinate courts & tribunals within legal bounds. It is not an appellate power to re-evaluate evidence but a corrective power against jurisdictional error.

Judicial Immunity

A shield protecting judges from personal liability for acts done in their judicial capacity. The idea is that fear of litigation must not deter a judge from making independent decisions.

Section 197 CrPC – Sanction for Prosecution

Public servants (including judges) cannot be prosecuted for acts performed “while acting or purporting to act” in official capacity, unless the Government first grants sanction.

Collateral Attack

Challenging a judgment by means other than the prescribed appellate process, e.g., by filing a separate writ, criminal complaint or suit.

Handwriting Expert Testimony

Opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court may accept or reject it; mere rejection does not prove malpractice by the expert.

5. Conclusion

Kamlesh Chaturvedi’s petition was a textbook illustration of an impermissible collateral attack on a civil decree. The High Court seized the opportunity to restate two intertwined doctrines: (1) judicial immunity from unfounded prosecutions, and (2) the proper-forum rule mandating litigants to exhaust regular remedies before invoking constitutional writs. While the judgment does not innovate new law, it reinforces essential guardrails that preserve judicial independence and procedural discipline. Future litigants, counsel and even subordinate judges can now cite this decision as an authoritative reminder that allegations of bias or fraud must be proved in the appropriate forum, not parachuted into writ proceedings as a short-cut. In the broader legal landscape, the ruling contributes to a stable environment where judicial officers can perform duties without intimidation, yet leaving intact the pathways for bona-fide grievance redressal through appeals, bar council proceedings and sanctioned prosecutions.