Landmark Judicial Decisions
The concept of State liability in torts occupies a vital place in the Law of Administration and Administrative Law. In a welfare State, the government performs numerous functions through its officers, servants, and agencies. While exercising these powers, wrongful acts may be committed that cause injury to individuals. The fundamental question that arises is whether the State can be held liable for tortious acts of its servants in the same manner as a private individual. Indian administrative law has evolved significantly on this issue, balancing sovereign authority with citizens’ rights. Through constitutional provisions and landmark judicial decisions, courts have shaped the doctrine governing State liability in torts.
Meaning of Tort and State Liability
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract or breach of trust, for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Traditionally, tortious liability is based on the principle ubi jus ibi remedium—where there is a right, there is a remedy. When the tort is committed by a government servant during the course of employment, the issue arises whether the State should be vicariously liable.
The doctrine of vicarious liability holds a master liable for the acts of his servant done in the course of employment. However, historically, the State enjoyed immunity from such liability under the doctrine that “the King can do no wrong.” Indian courts, drawing from constitutional morality and democratic principles, have diluted this immunity.
Constitutional and Legal Basis of State Liability
The constitutional foundation of State liability in India lies in Article 300 of the Constitution of India. It provides that the Government of India or the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the same manner as the Dominion of India or the corresponding Provinces before the Constitution came into force.
Article 300 does not create liability by itself; it merely recognizes it. The actual scope of liability depends on judicial interpretation and principles inherited from English common law, especially the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions
The traditional test for State liability distinguishes between sovereign functions (acts performed in exercise of sovereign powers such as defense, administration of justice, and law enforcement) and non-sovereign or commercial functions (activities that could be performed by private individuals).
If the tort is committed during a sovereign function, the State is generally immune. If it arises from a non-sovereign function, the State is liable like any private employer. Indian courts have gradually narrowed the scope of sovereign immunity.
Landmark Judicial Decisions on State Liability in Torts
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861)
This is the foundational case on State liability in India. The plaintiff’s horse was injured due to negligence of government servants while carrying out repairs. The Supreme Court of Calcutta held that the State was liable because the act was done in the course of a non-sovereign function.
The court clearly distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions and laid the groundwork for holding the State liable for torts arising out of commercial or welfare activities.
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)
In this case, a government jeep driven negligently by a State employee caused the death of a pedestrian. The Supreme Court held the State liable, observing that the maintenance of vehicles for official use was not a sovereign function.
The Court emphasized that in a welfare State, immunity should not be extended broadly, and citizens should not be left without remedy due to technical distinctions.
Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965)
This case marked a restrictive turn in State liability. Gold seized by police was misappropriated by a constable. The Supreme Court held that the State was not liable, as the act was committed during the exercise of sovereign powers of law enforcement.
The judgment was widely criticized for reviving the doctrine of sovereign immunity and creating injustice for victims of State negligence. However, it remains a significant precedent in understanding the limits of State liability.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
This case marked a progressive shift in Indian administrative law. The petitioner’s son died in police custody. The Supreme Court awarded compensation under Article 32, holding that violation of fundamental rights warrants public law remedies.
The Court clarified that sovereign immunity does not apply where fundamental rights under Article 21 are violated. This decision established the principle of constitutional tort, expanding State liability beyond traditional tort law.
Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)
The Supreme Court reiterated that misuse of power by public authorities resulting in loss to individuals attracts State liability. The case emphasized accountability, transparency, and compensation as essential elements of good governance.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
In this landmark case, the petitioner was kept in illegal detention even after acquittal. The Supreme Court awarded compensation, holding that mere release was not sufficient. This case reinforced the idea that State liability arises from abuse of administrative power.
Modern Approach to State Liability
The modern judicial trend in India favors greater accountability of the State. Courts increasingly reject blanket sovereign immunity, especially in cases involving:
- Custodial deaths
- Police brutality
- Illegal detention
- Violation of fundamental rights
- Negligence in public welfare functions
The emphasis is now on public law compensation rather than strict adherence to private law distinctions.
Mnemonic to Remember State Liability in Torts
“P-V-K-N-R = Public Power Needs Responsibility”
- P – Peninsular Case (foundation)
- V – Vidyawati (State liable)
- K – Kasturi Lal (sovereign immunity)
- N – Nilabati Behera (constitutional tort)
- R – Rudul Sah (compensation for illegal detention)
About Lawgnan
Understanding the liability of the State in torts is essential for every law student, judicial aspirant, and legal professional dealing with administrative law. Landmark judicial decisions clearly show how courts balance sovereign authority with citizens’ rights. If you want simplified explanations, exam-oriented answers, case law analysis, and updated legal insights, explore more such authoritative content on lawgana.in. Stay ahead in your legal journey with well-researched articles, mnemonics for easy revision, and practical interpretations of complex legal doctrines. Click the link, deepen your understanding, and strengthen your command over Administrative Law and constitutional accountability today.
