The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity states that the State cannot be sued without its consent. This principle originates from the English maxim “The King can do no wrong.” In India, the doctrine operates within a constitutional framework and does not grant absolute protection to the State. Article 300 of the Constitution of India allows the Union and States to sue and be sued. However, the law restricts liability when the State performs core sovereign functions. These functions include defense, administration of justice, and maintenance of public order. Therefore, the doctrine protects the State only in limited situations. Moreover, Indian courts apply this doctrine cautiously. They ensure that State power does not override citizens’ rights. As a result, sovereign immunity functions as a qualified rule rather than an absolute shield.
Legal Position Under Indian Law
Indian law clearly distinguishes between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Article 300, read with Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, forms the legal base for State liability. When the State performs sovereign duties, immunity may apply. However, when it engages in commercial or welfare activities, courts often deny immunity. For example, transport services and public enterprises fall under non-sovereign functions. Consequently, the State remains liable for negligence in such activities. Furthermore, courts interpret the doctrine in harmony with Articles 14 and 21. This approach promotes equality and personal liberty. Hence, the legal position favors accountability while preserving essential State functions.
Judicial Interpretation and Scope
Indian courts have steadily narrowed the scope of sovereign immunity. They emphasize constitutional accountability and rule of law. Importantly, courts reject immunity claims when State actions violate fundamental rights. Under Articles 32 and 226, citizens can seek remedies directly from constitutional courts. Moreover, courts grant compensation in public law cases such as illegal detention and custodial deaths. This remedy operates independently of private law claims. As a result, immunity does not block justice in serious rights violations. Therefore, judicial interpretation ensures that sovereign immunity does not protect abuse of power. Instead, it works as a limited exception within a rights-based legal system.
Real-Time Example
A clear real-time example arises from police actions. When police lawfully use force to control riots, the State may claim sovereign immunity. This protection exists because law and order maintenance is a sovereign function. However, the situation changes when police act illegally. For instance, courts have awarded compensation for custodial deaths and unlawful detention. In such cases, courts reject immunity claims. They focus on human rights violations and State accountability. Thus, the application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the act. This example shows that immunity is conditional and subject to judicial review.
Mnemonic to Remember the Doctrine
To remember the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, use the mnemonic “LIMITED STATE”.
L – Liability exists
I – Immunity only for core functions
M – Maintenance of law and order protected
I – Illegal acts not protected
T – Tort liability in non-sovereign acts
E – Equality before law preserved
D – Democratic accountability ensured
S T A T E – State power is not absolute
This mnemonic helps recall that immunity is narrow and conditional.
About Lawgnan
If you want to master constitutional and administrative law concepts, consistent reading is essential. Clear understanding helps in exams, case analysis, and legal practice. Therefore, rely on platforms that explain doctrines with clarity and examples. Visit lawgana.in to explore simplified legal notes, updated case laws, and exam-focused answers. The platform supports law students, advocates, and competitive exam aspirants. Stay updated with evolving legal principles. Strengthen your fundamentals today by learning law the smart way.
