Section 20

The Indian Penal Code uses the term 'Court of Justice' in several offences, such as those relating to contempt, giving false evidence, or offences against public justice. This section was included to fix a clear, technical meaning for that phrase so that it would not depend on the informal or colloquial sense of 'court.' It ensures that criminal liability for offences committed 'before a Court of Justice' attaches only when a person with real judicial power is exercising that power, not merely holding an official title or sitting outside their judicial capacity.

Indian courts have generally read this definition together with Section 19 (which defines 'Judge') to determine whether a particular officer or tribunal counts as a 'Court of Justice' for the purposes of offences like perjury or contempt. Courts have held that the key test is functional: the person or body must be legally empowered to decide matters judicially, and must be acting in that judicial capacity at the relevant time, rather than administratively or in some other role. Tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies have been examined case by case to see if they satisfy this functional test.

• Myth: Any place where a judge is present counts as a 'Court of Justice.'
  Fact: Under this section, it only counts as a 'Court of Justice' when the judge or judges are legally empowered to act judicially AND are actually acting in that judicial capacity at the time, not in any other setting.
• Myth: 'Court of Justice' only means a single judge.
  Fact: The definition covers both a single judge acting alone and a body of judges acting together as a bench.