Before one who is not a judge.
Coram non judice is Latin Legal Maxim meaning for “not before a judge,” is a legal term basically used to indicate a proceeding which is legal in nature that is outside the authority of a judge (without a judge), with improper presence, or without legal jurisdiction. Any indictment or sentence passed by a tribunal/court which has no authority to try an accused of that particular offence, is clearly in violation of the law of the land and would be termed as Coram non judice.
If a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the a fresh appeal despite of the very fact that the order passed by the court is in standing of it as an appellate authority has achieved finality, the order passed by such court on the basis of an illegal proceeding would be termed as Coram non judice.
A. Viswanathan V. R. Narayanaswamy Substituted By V.R. Ranganathan & Others
The counsel urged that the members of the testator’s family including the appellant who were all parties, to the various proceedings never challenged the Full Bench judgment of the Mysore High Court that it is a nullity, on the ground that is now taken in I.A. 20. On the other hand, they have proceeded on the basis that the appeal by the High Court. The binding nature of that judgment was contested before the Madras High court only on the ground that it has become Coram Non Judice.
B. State Of Rajasthan vs. Jeev Raj
A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject-matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a coram non judice.
C. Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Others
A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial “coram non judice”.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 R. Viswanathan v. R. Narayanaswamy Substituted By V.R. Ranganathan & Ors., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 414.
 State Of Rajasthan v. Jeev Raj, A.I.R. 2011 12 S.C.C. 252.
 Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1988 (94) CRLJ 158.