The court held that judicial immunity is not
applicable where a body constitutionally
intended to be a shield from public scrutiny.
Judicial independence and immunity do not
shield a judicial officer from accountability.
That in a democratic polity, it is inconceivable,
that any person, whether an individual or an
authority, exercises power without being
answerable for the exercise. Judicial

accountability like judicial independence has
thus come to be recognized as a bulwark of the
Rule of Law. That what constitutes abuse of
judicial authority is improper/ inappropriate
use of the power of a judicial office. This must
be differentiated from a judicial officer’s error
in law which can only be the subject of appeal.
That a judicial officer once notified of a
complaint lodged against them before the JSC
for abuse of judicial authority cannot answer
that call with the shield of judicial immunity.