De facto doctrine preserves judicial acts despite invalid appointments and bars collateral challenges to a judge's title

Judicial acts performed by a judge acting under colour of lawful authority remain valid under the de facto doctrine, even if the appointment is later declared invalid. The invalidity of the appointment does not, by itself, render prior judgments or orders void, and the judge's title to office cannot be impeached collaterally in proceedings between private parties. Public policy and necessity support the binding effect of such acts until the office is directly challenged in appropriate proceedings. The impugned judgments and orders were therefore upheld in law, and the collateral challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether judgments and orders passed by judges whose appointments were later declared invalid could be treated as void, and whether such appointments could be challenged collaterally in appeals against those judgments.

Analysis: A judge de facto is not a mere usurper but a person who holds office under colour of lawful authority and exercises the powers of that office. On grounds of public policy and necessity, acts done by such a person within the scope of the office are treated as valid and binding until the title to office is directly questioned in appropriate proceedings. The invalidity of the appointment does not by itself invalidate judicial acts already performed, and the title of the judge cannot be impeached collaterally in litigation between private parties. Constitutional invalidity of the appointment does not alter the operation of this doctrine, and the principle is reinforced by constitutional and statutory provisions validating official acts despite void elections or appointments.

Conclusion: The judgments and orders passed by the judges were not void, and the collateral challenge to their appointments failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not succeed, and the impugned judgments and orders were upheld in law on the basis of the de facto doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial acts performed by a judge acting under colour of lawful authority remain valid notwithstanding a later declaration that the appointment was invalid, and such appointment cannot be questioned collaterally in proceedings between private parties.

---