Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Article 300: Liability of State

• Article 300 of the Indian Constitution outlines the framework for sovereign immunity and government liability as follows:
• The first part of Article 300 delineates the procedure for initiating legal proceedings against or by the Government. It states that the Union of India or a State may sue or be sued under its respective name.
• The second part of Article 300 specifies that the Union of India or a State can sue or be sued in matters pertaining to its affairs in a manner similar to how the Dominion of India or corresponding Indian States would have been involved in legal proceedings if the Constitution had not been enacted.
• The third part of Article 300 empowers the Parliament or the legislature of a State to enact provisions governing the subject matter covered by Article 300(1).
• In essence, Article 300 of the Indian Constitution provides the legal framework for determining government liability and outlines the procedures for initiating legal actions against or by the Government in various circumstances.

Role of Article 226 and Article 32

• After 1977, there was a notable change in the Indian legal landscape regarding cases of wrongful incarceration and custodial death. Many such cases were brought before the Supreme Court through writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution or appeals filed against High Court judgments using Article 226.
• In these cases, compensation was awarded to the victims or their legal representatives, irrespective of whether the arrest was found to be illegal or if the inmate’s death resulted from abuse or gross negligence by police personnel.
• A significant development in the interpretation of these constitutional provisions came with the case of Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa. In this case, the court granted compensation to the petitioner, who had lost her son in police custody.
  The court’s ruling established several crucial principles:
  • Public Law Claim for Compensation: The court acknowledged a claim in public law for compensation for violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This claim was viewed as a remedy for the enforcement and protection of such rights and was distinct from and additional to the remedy available in private law for damages related to tort (civil wrongs).
  • Distinct from Private Law Damages: The court stressed that the public law claim for compensation under Article 32 and Article 226 was separate and independent from the remedies available in private law for tortious actions. This meant that individuals could seek compensation for violations of their fundamental rights through constitutional remedies in addition to pursuing traditional private law damages for wrongful acts.
  • Sovereign Immunity Not Applicable: Importantly, the court explicitly stated that the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply to public law remedies under Article 32 and Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This meant that the government or its agents could be held accountable and liable for violations of fundamental rights through these constitutional remedies, even if the principle of sovereign immunity might have shielded them in other contexts.

• The Nilabati Behra case marked a significant advancement in the legal framework for seeking compensation in cases involving violations of fundamental rights. It clarified that individuals could seek redress for such violations through constitutional remedies, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity would not act as a barrier to holding the government accountable for human rights abuses or wrongful actions. This decision underscored the importance of protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that individuals had avenues to seek justice when those rights were violated.

Article 21 and Doctrine Sovereign Immunity

In this case:

• Facts: The petitioner and his father were detained in a jail when they were attacked by rivals using bombs. Unfortunately, the father was killed, and the petitioner was injured in the attack. Despite prior knowledge of the threat and communication of their fears to the authorities, no additional security was provided to the victims. Moreover, the number of police officers assigned to guard the jail was significantly reduced. The petitioner filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging negligence.
• Trial Court: The trial court found that the authorities had been negligent in their supervision of the jail, contributing to the death of the petitioner’s father. However, the lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the arrest and incarceration of the deceased were carried out as part of the State’s sovereign powers.
• High Court Decision: The High Court, upon considering Article 21 of the Constitution, concluded that an individual’s right to life is fundamental and cannot be deprived except through due process of law. It determined that claims for violations of fundamental rights cannot be overridden by statutory immunities, especially when the negligence that led to the incident was illegal and a violation of Article 21. The High Court emphasized that sovereign immunity could not supersede constitutional provisions.
• Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the State’s appeal and stated that the maxim that "the King can do no wrong" or that "the Crown is not answerable in tort" has no place in Indian jurisprudence. It affirmed that the power lies not with the Crown but with the people, who elect their representatives to govern according to the Constitution. Thus, the government is answerable to the people for any violations of constitutional provisions.
• Significance: This case underscored the principle that sovereign immunity is not applicable when a fundamental right, such as the right to life under Article 21, is violated. It affirmed that the government is not immune from liability when it fails to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. The ruling emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional provisions and holding the government accountable when it breaches these rights, thereby limiting the application of sovereign immunity in cases involving fundamental rights violations.