Home > Indian Penal Code 1860 > Section 78 IPC

Section 78 IPC: Act Done Pursuant to a Court Judgment or Order

Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was one of the General Exceptions. It protected an act done in pursuance of, or warranted by, a judgment or order of a Court of Justice while that judgment or order remained in force. The provision could also operate where the court lacked jurisdiction, provided the person doing the act in good faith believed that the court had jurisdiction.

Pre-BNS legal position: This article explains Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. For conduct governed by the earlier IPC regime, the applicable law must be considered with the relevant saving and transitional provisions.

What did Section 78 IPC provide?

Section 78 addressed acts carried out under the authority of a judicial judgment or order. Its purpose was to exclude criminality, within the conditions stated in the section, where a person acts pursuant to or is warranted by an operative judgment or order of a Court of Justice.

Text of Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

78. Act 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.

Essential requirements of Section 78 IPC

Judgment or order of a Court of Justice: the act must be connected with a judgment or order falling within the statutory wording.
Act pursuant to or warranted by it: the act must be done in pursuance of, or be warranted by, that judgment or order.
Order must remain in force: the act must be done while the judgment or order remains operative.
Lack of jurisdiction does not automatically defeat the exception: Section 78 expressly contemplates a situation where the court may have had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment or order.
Good-faith belief in jurisdiction: where jurisdiction is absent, the person doing the act must in good faith believe that the court had such jurisdiction.

Meaning of "in pursuance of" or "warranted by" a court order

The wording requires a connection between the act and the judicial judgment or order. An act may fall within the section when it is performed in execution or pursuance of the order, or where the act is otherwise warranted by the order. The statutory protection is therefore tied to what the operative judicial direction authorizes or requires.

The judgment or order must remain in force

Section 78 expressly requires the act to be done whilst such judgment or order remains in force. This condition is significant because the exception is framed around reliance on an operative judicial command or authority.

Situation	Section 78 position
Act is done pursuant to or warranted by a valid court judgment or order that remains in force.	The situation falls within the principal wording of Section 78.
The court lacked jurisdiction, but the actor in good faith believed the court had jurisdiction.	Section 78 expressly provides for this situation, subject to its other requirements.
The judgment or order is no longer in force when the act is done.	The express requirement that the judgment or order remain in force is not satisfied.
The act is not pursuant to or warranted by the judgment or order.	The necessary statutory connection with the court judgment or order is absent.

Good faith and jurisdiction under Section 78

A distinctive feature of Section 78 is its treatment of jurisdiction. The provision states that the exception may apply notwithstanding that the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment or order, but only where the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction. The good-faith requirement is therefore important where the court's jurisdiction is deficient.

Core rule: Section 78 does not simply protect every act associated with a court proceeding. The act must be pursuant to or warranted by the relevant judgment or order, the judgment or order must remain in force, and the statutory good-faith condition becomes material where the court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 77 and Section 78 IPC - difference

Section 77 IPC concerns an act done by a Judge when acting judicially in exercise of a power given by law or believed in good faith to be given by law. Section 78, by contrast, concerns the person doing an act pursuant to or warranted by a judgment or order of a Court of Justice. The provisions therefore address different actors and different aspects of judicial authority.

Section 76 and Section 78 IPC

Section 76 IPC deals more generally with an act done by a person who is bound by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and in good faith believes himself bound by law, to do it. Section 78 specifically addresses acts pursuant to or warranted by an operative court judgment or order and contains its own rule concerning good-faith belief in the court's jurisdiction.

Key takeaway

Under Section 78 IPC, an act was not an offence when it was done in pursuance of or warranted by a judgment or order of a Court of Justice while that judgment or order remained in force. Even if the court lacked jurisdiction, the exception could apply where the person doing the act in good faith believed that the court had jurisdiction.

This page explains the Indian Penal Code position before implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Application of a General Exception depends on the facts, evidence, operative judicial order and law applicable to the relevant period.