Introduction and Constitutional Basis
Tortious liability of the State refers to the State’s legal responsibility for wrongful acts (torts) committed by its servants or agents in the course of their employment. The concept stems from Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, which provides that the Union and States may be sued for acts of their servants as they could have been sued before the Constitution came into force. This means the State is not absolutely immune from liability but enjoys limited protection, especially concerning sovereign functions. The doctrine recognizes that while the State performs public duties, it must also compensate citizens for harm caused by negligence or wrongful acts in non-sovereign activities.
Nature and Legal Interpretation
The liability of the State depends on whether the act was performed in the exercise of a sovereign or non-sovereign function. If the wrongful act occurred during non-sovereign functions (such as transport or commercial activities), the State is liable just like a private employer. However, if the act arises from sovereign functions (such as defense or law enforcement), the State generally enjoys immunity. This distinction was established in P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861) and reaffirmed in Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1039), where the Court held that the State was not liable for negligence of police officers performing sovereign duties.
Significance and Modern Approach
The doctrine of State liability in tort is vital for protecting citizens against abuse of power and ensuring government accountability. Over time, courts have moved toward a more liberal interpretation, holding the State liable even for certain sovereign acts where fundamental rights are violated, as seen in Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993). These cases reflect the judiciary’s commitment to uphold constitutional remedies under Article 21, ensuring that the State’s immunity does not override justice and human rights.
Real-Time Example
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation to the mother of a man who died in police custody, holding the State vicariously liable for violation of Article 21 (Right to Life). The Court clarified that public law remedies could coexist with tort liability, emphasizing that the State cannot escape responsibility for wrongful acts of its officers, especially in cases involving fundamental rights violations. This case marked a turning point in expanding the scope of State liability in India.
Mnemonic to Remember – “STATE”
S – Sovereign vs. Non-sovereign acts determine liability
T – Tortious acts by government servants
A – Accountability through Article 300
T – Torts causing harm must be compensated
E – Evolving interpretation by courts
The mnemonic “STATE” helps remember that State liability in tort is based on Sovereignty, Torts, Accountability, and Evolving judicial interpretation, balancing public duty with citizen protection.
About lawgnan:
Explore the Tortious Liability of the State in India in detail at Lawgnan.in. Understand how Article 300 of the Constitution governs the State’s liability for wrongful acts committed by its servants, distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. This article examines landmark cases such as P. & O. Steam Navigation Co., Kasturilal, and Nilabati Behera, which shaped India’s evolving approach to State accountability and compensation for violations of fundamental rights. Perfect for law students, judiciary aspirants, and UPSC candidates, this comprehensive guide simplifies complex doctrines of constitutional tort and vicarious liability with real-world judicial insights.
