Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.—Petitioner was a complainant in a complaint, filed by him before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, titled Abdul Gani Bhat v. Muzaffar Ahmad Khan. The present respondent no.1 had been Presiding Officer of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, sometime in 2011. He passed certain orders in the aforesaid complaint, which did not find favour with petitioner and as a consequence thereof, he has come up with writ petition on hand. The contentions contained in the petition in hand are, on their cursory examination, vituperative in nature, followed by relief(s) solicited for by petitioner against respondent no.1. 2. I have heard the petitioner and perused the record on the file. 3. At the threshold, respondent no.1, while dealing with the case of petitioner in the capacity of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, was, in essence, acting as a Judicial Officer. Whatever done or ordered to be done by respondent no.1 when he dealt with the case of petitioner, was done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty. 4. As far as prayers, petitioner has sought for in the petition on hand, are concerned, the same relate qua the acts of respondent no.1, that he discharged while functioning as judicial officer. Such acts of a Judicial Officer are protected by and fall under the umbrella of the Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, 1971 (1914 A.D.). The said Act was sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur, which was published in Government Gazette dated 20th Magher 1971. It was enacted for greater protection of Magistrates and others acting judicially. In terms of the Act, no Judge shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction. 5. Section 77 of J&K Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) also provides protection to Judges. It envisages that nothing is an offence, which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, bound by law to do it. 6. 5. Section 77 of J&K Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) also provides protection to Judges. It envisages that nothing is an offence, which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, bound by law to do it. 6. It is, thus, clear that in view of the aforesaid Statutory provisions, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. 7. Prayers, implored for by petitioner in instant writ petition, pertain to the acts committed, things done or words spoken by respondent no.1, while acting in the discharge of his judicial function. On this short ground alone, in view of the protection granted by the Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, 1971, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 8. Moreover, Section 77 of RPC also specifically provides that nothing is an offence, which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. A perusal of orders passed by respondent no.1, makes it clear that he was acting in his capacity as a Presiding Officer of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, and was, therefore, acting judicially in exercise of the power which is, or which in good faith, he believed to be given to him by law. 9. It is fundamental that if rule of law is to have any meaning and content, the authority of the court or a statutory authority and the confidence of the public in them should not be allowed to be shaken, diluted or undermined. The courts of justice and all tribunals, exercising judicial functions from the highest to the lowest, are by their constitution entrusted with functions directly connected with the administration of justice. It is that expectation and confidence of all those, who have or are likely to have business in that court or tribunal, which should be maintained so that the court/tribunal perform all their functions on a higher level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. It is that expectation and confidence of all those, who have or are likely to have business in that court or tribunal, which should be maintained so that the court/tribunal perform all their functions on a higher level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Casting defamatory aspersions upon the character, ability or integrity of the judge/judicial officer/authority undermines the dignity of the court/ authority and tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impedes the confidence of people in the courts/ tribunals, which is of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties. The protection to judges/judicial officer/authority is not personal but accorded to protect the institution of the judiciary from undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of judicial process. The protection, therefore, is for fearless curial process. Any scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious attack on the judicial officer/authority beyond condonable limits, amounts to scandalising the court/tribunal amenable to not only conviction for its contempt but also liable to libel or defamation and damages personally or group libel. Maintenance of dignity of the court/judicial officer or quasi-judicial authority is, therefore, one of the cardinal principles of rule of law embedded in judicial review. Any uncalled for statement or allegation against the judicial officer/statutory authorities, casting aspersions of court's integrity would justify initiation of appropriate action for scandalising the court or tribunal or vindication of authority or majesty of the court/tribunal. The unfounded accusation by litigant against judicial officer undermines their authority and rudely shakes the public confidence in proper dispensation of justice. It is of necessity to protect dignity or authority of the judicial officer to maintain the stream of justice pure and unobstructed. The judicial officer/authority needs protection against such intimidating attacks. Therefore, making wild allegations against the presiding officer amounts to scandalising the court/statutory authority. 10. In the instant case, respondent no.1 as Judicial officer had unquestionably the jurisdiction to try, decide and pass orders in the case(s) pending before him vis-à-vis subject matter of particular case(s). The orders/findings that petitioner characterises as “pooh-poohing”, “discouraging”, “highly prejudicial”, “biased” etcetera, are acts done by respondent no.1 in the discharge of his judicial duties. Worth to be seen is that petitioner, in the body of petition, has even levelled allegations against Principal District Judge, Srinagar, and the subordinate staff working in the courts. The orders/findings that petitioner characterises as “pooh-poohing”, “discouraging”, “highly prejudicial”, “biased” etcetera, are acts done by respondent no.1 in the discharge of his judicial duties. Worth to be seen is that petitioner, in the body of petition, has even levelled allegations against Principal District Judge, Srinagar, and the subordinate staff working in the courts. This being the position, the acts of respondent no.1 or for that matter of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, or the staff attached with these Courts, done by him/them in his/their judicial capacity, on the basis of which, petitioner was threatening to bring an action for damages against the judicial officer(s), enjoy absolute protection against civil action. Nor would the fact that petitioner had temerity to ridicule and characterise the findings and decisions of the Subordinate Judge(s) as “bias, “discouraging” or “highly prejudicial”, to give him the locus to bring the present petition against Subordinate Judge(s). 11. It is noticed that a new trend has emerged with the litigants, who on losing a case in the Court of law, make all sorts of allegation against the Judge knowing full well, the Judge would have no opportunity to rebut. 12. Given the nature of allegations made against the learned Judge, the petitioner could not have been allowed to go scot free without being made accountable for his conduct. But since the petitioner has appeared in person may not be knowing the consequences of his act and also looking to his age (a senior citizen), I do not propose to proceed any further. 13. For all what has been discussed above, writ petition lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed.