Section 35: Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith
Section 35 shields the Central Government, the Board and its people from legal proceedings over anything they did, or intended to do, in good faith under the Act or its rules.
Quick summary
What Section 35 says
- Section 35 — no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government, the Board, its Chairperson, or any Member, officer or employee of the Board, for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith under the Act's provisions or the rules made thereunder.
Breaking it down
This is a standard “good faith immunity” clause of the kind found in many Indian statutes establishing regulatory bodies — protecting officials from being personally targeted with litigation simply for doing their job as the Act intends.
The protection is conditional on good faith, not absolute. It covers action “done or intended to be done in good faith” — it doesn't shield conduct that isn't genuinely undertaken in good faith, such as deliberate misconduct or bad-faith abuse of power.
It covers a wide range of potential defendants. The Central Government itself, the Board as an institution, and individually the Chairperson, any Member, officer or employee — meaning both the institution and the specific people carrying out its functions are covered.
It applies broadly across legal proceeding types. “Suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings” covers civil suits, criminal prosecution, and other proceeding types generally, not just one narrow category of litigation.
Why this section matters
Regulators, investigators and adjudicators need to be able to exercise judgment and take enforcement action without the chilling effect of personal legal exposure for every good-faith decision that a losing party might want to challenge. Section 35 provides that protection, while the good-faith qualifier keeps it from becoming a shield for genuine misconduct.
Real-world example
How the immunity applies in practice
A Board officer, acting on the Board's direction, issues an interim order under Section 28(10) against a company during an active inquiry, based on the evidence available at the time.
- If the order later turns out to be based on an honest misjudgment of the evidence — Section 35 protects the officer and the Board from being sued personally over that decision, as long as it was made in good faith under the Act's provisions.
- The protection wouldn't extend — to a scenario where an official acted with deliberate bad faith — for instance, knowingly fabricating evidence — since that conduct wouldn't meet the good-faith standard this section requires.
Who needs to care about this section
- Board Chairperson, Members, officers and employees — this section protects them personally for good-faith conduct in their official roles.
- The Central Government — also covered for its own good-faith actions under the Act.
Common questions
Does this section mean the Board can never be sued for anything?
Are individual Board officers personally protected, or only the Board as an institution?
Related sections
Section 36 — Power to Call for Information
Continue to the next section in sequence.
Read Section 36Section 34 — Crediting Sums Realised by Way of Penalties to Consolidated Fund of India
Go back to the previous section.
Read Section 34Chapter IX — Miscellaneous
See every section in this chapter together.
View the chapterFull DPDP Act Guide
Back to the overview page, with the complete section-by-section guide.
View all 44 sections