Under English Common Law, the historical rule was: "The King can do no wrong" (Sovereign Immunity). However, in a democratic republic like India, can the State escape liability when its officers injure a citizen?
1. Constitutional Foundation: Article 300
Article 300 of the Constitution states that the Government of India or a State Government can sue and be sued in the same manner as the East India Company could have been sued before the Constitution. This forces courts to look back at the historical precedents of the 19th century.
2. The Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Distinction
The courts established a controversial division to decide state liability:
- Sovereign Functions: Acts of state, maintenance of law and order, military operations, and justice administration. The State holds absolute immunity and cannot be sued for torts committed during these functions.
- Non-Sovereign Functions: Commercial operations, public transport, running hospitals, or construction works. The State enjoys no immunity and is vicariously liable for its employees' negligence.
3. Key Landmark Precedents
A driver of a government jeep, returning from a repair workshop, ran over a pedestrian due to reckless driving. The State claimed sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court rejected the defense, holding that driving a vehicle back from repairs is a non-sovereign function. The State is fully liable.
📜 Case 2: Kasturilal Ralia Ram v. State of UP (1965) - Sovereign Immunity ExceptionPolice seized gold from a merchant under suspicion of it being stolen. A police officer stole the gold from the police treasury and fled to Pakistan. The merchant sued for the value of the gold. The Supreme Court reluctantly held that keeping seized property is a sovereign function under the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the State was NOT liable.
4. The Modern Shift: Public Law Compensation
Because the Kasturilal distinction led to grave injustice, modern courts routinely bypass sovereign immunity by granting compensation under public law for violations of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa), effectively rendering sovereign immunity nearly dead in cases of physical injury or death caused by police excess.