Tortious Liability of the State and Article 300 of the Constitution | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The first part of Article 300 deals with the procedures for initiating legal actions against or by the government. It specifies that a State can sue or be sued under the names of either the Union of India or the respective State.
• The second part allows the Union of India or a State to engage in legal proceedings similar to those that the Dominion of India or an equivalent Indian State could have undertaken if the Constitution had not been enforced.
• The third part empowers the Parliament or State legislatures to enact laws concerning matters outlined in Article 300(1).

Understanding the Tortious Liability of the State as per Article 300 of the Indian Constitution

Essence of Article 300

• Article 300 of the Indian Constitution delineates the legal framework regarding the capacity of the Government of India and State Governments to sue and be sued.

Clarity on Legal Capacity

• The Government of India and State Governments possess the right to sue or be sued under their respective titles.
• This legal provision allows legal actions against the Union of India or State Governments, resembling the pre-constitutional legal scenarios.
• Any pending legal proceedings involving the Dominion of India, provinces, or Indian States are seamlessly transferred to the Union of India or respective State Governments post-constitution commencement.

Substitution Principle

• Upon the Constitution's commencement, the Union of India seamlessly substitutes the Dominion of India in ongoing legal cases.
• Similarly, State Governments replace provinces or Indian States in pending legal matters, ensuring the continuity of legal actions.

Illustrative Example

• For instance, if a lawsuit against the Dominion of India was ongoing when the Constitution came into effect, the Union of India would step in as the new party.
• Likewise, if a legal dispute involved a province or Indian State, the corresponding State Government would take over the proceedings.

Important Case Laws dealing with the Tortious Liability of the State

Pand O Navigation Company V. Secretary of State for India

• In this case, a piece of iron funnel carried by government workmen collided with a plaintiff's horse-driven carriage, causing damage.
• The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State for India for negligence of government servants.
• The Supreme Court ruling stated that the government is liable for actions of its servants in non-sovereign functions but not for injuries during sovereign functions.

Nobin Chunder Dey V. Secretary of State

• In this case, the Calcutta High Court denied the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the wrongful refusal of a license to sell specific items.
• The court upheld that the grant or refusal of a license is considered a sovereign function exempt from the state's tortuous liability.
• This case established the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions as a key factor in determining state liability.

Other Provisions related to the Tortious Liability of the Administration

• According to Article 294 (4) of the constitution, the liability of the Union Government or a State Government can arise from contracts or other sources. This indicates that the liability can also extend to tortious acts. Article 300 (1) specifies the extent of this liability, equating it to the liability of the Dominion of India before the Constitution came into effect.
• In India, the English legal principle regarding the immunity of the Government from the tortious acts of its employees is partially accepted. The courts have generally upheld that a state cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent due to its sovereignty. A distinction is made between the 'sovereign functions' and 'non-sovereign functions' of the state, with the state not being liable in cases involving tort.
• Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandates that no lawsuit can be filed against the government until two months after providing a written notice.
• Under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a decree is issued against the Union of India or a State, it cannot be enforced until three months have passed from the date of the decree if it remains unpaid.
• As per article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any suit on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government must be filed within a period of 30 years.