Judiciary Exams Exam  >  Judiciary Exams Notes  >  Civil Law for Judiciary Exams  >  Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

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

Introduction

  • The doctrine of sovereign immunity is a legal principle that shields a sovereign state or government from lawsuits unless it consents to being sued. This immunity applies to both civil and criminal litigation, preventing individuals from initiating legal actions against the government or its representatives without prior consent.
  • This doctrine is based on the idea that the state possesses ultimate authority and cannot be held accountable for its decisions, as it acts in the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Understanding sovereign immunity is crucial in constitutional law, as it shapes how the government interacts with its constituents.
  • It's important to recognize that the application of sovereign immunity may differ among nations and legal systems. The precise scope and boundaries of this immunity are subject to ongoing debate and interpretation within the legal community.

Meaning of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

  • Sovereign immunity is a legal principle that shields a sovereign state from civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and legal liability for any wrongful actions it may commit. This doctrine acts as a protective barrier for the state, providing justification for any misconduct or legal transgressions carried out by the state or its agents.
  • The origins of the doctrine of sovereign immunity can be traced back to the Latin legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong." This doctrine is rooted in Common Law, which holds that the monarch cannot be personally held accountable for any wrongdoing, negligence, or misconduct and, therefore, cannot be held liable for the actions of their agents.

History of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India

Origin of Sovereign Immunity:

  • The concept of sovereign immunity in India has roots in the common law system introduced during British colonial rule.
  • Under British common law, the King and his representatives were considered immune from legal actions.

Adoption in Indian Legal System:

  • India inherited the doctrine of sovereign immunity from British legal principles.
  • Indian courts upheld this doctrine for a significant period, leading to challenges in seeking legal redress against the government.

Challenges and Reevaluation:

  • Over time, legitimate claims for damages faced rejection under sovereign immunity, sparking calls for its reconsideration.
  • Courts faced pressure to adapt to modern legal standards and ensure fair compensation for victims.

Legal Reforms:

  • Indian courts gradually restricted the scope of sovereign immunity to prevent unjust denials of legitimate claims.
  • The Law Commission of India recognized the need to abolish this outdated doctrine to align with evolving legal principles.

Legislative Stagnation:

  • Efforts to pass a bill eliminating sovereign immunity faced obstacles, leading to continued reliance on judicial interpretation.
  • The courts were tasked with determining the compatibility of sovereign immunity with modern legal needs and societal expectations.

Question for Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
Try yourself:
What is the purpose of the sovereign immunity doctrine?
View Solution

Evolution of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India [Torts and Administrative Law]

Origin of Sovereign Immunity:

  • The doctrine of sovereign immunity in India traces back to the pivotal case of P & O Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State.
  • It involved an incident where a government employee's negligence led to a mishap involving a carriage owned by the plaintiff.
  • The court deliberated on distinguishing actions under "sovereign authority" versus those falling outside sovereign functions.

Expansion of Legal Precedents:

  • In Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji, a salt transportation dispute highlighted actions falling under sovereign functions, which were deemed justifiable even if not replicable by private individuals.
  • Nobin Chunder Dey v. Secretary of State emphasized the denial of a license as a sovereign function, thereby exempting the State from tort liability.

Challenges to Sovereign Immunity:

  • State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati challenged the State's immunity after a fatal accident caused by a government driver, leading to a ruling holding the State liable.
  • Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. showcased a nuanced scenario where employee negligence, even under state employment, did not automatically entail sovereign immunity for the State.

Judicial Interpretations and Compensation:

  • Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar set a precedent by awarding damages within a habeas corpus petition, expanding to cases like Bhim Singh v. State of Rajasthan, granting compensation for wrongful arrests and detentions.

Constitutional Provisions on Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

  • The doctrine of sovereign immunity has persisted in Indian courts from the mid-nineteenth century until recently. However, legitimate claims for damages were often dismissed based on an outdated concept, leading to frustration and calls for reform. Indian courts have gradually narrowed the scope of sovereign powers to ensure that genuine victims can receive fair compensation.
  • It's important to understand that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India is not explicitly stated in the constitutional text but is inferred from various provisions of the constitution and other legislative enactments.
  • One key provision related to sovereign immunity is Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses the "Liability of State." Article 300 traces its origins to Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which can be further traced back to Section 32 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and even earlier to Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858.
  • Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, established that "All persons and bodies politic shall and may have and take the same suits, for India as they could have done against the said Company." This historical lineage indicates that the liability of the Government of India and the Governments of the States is comparable to that of the East India Company before 1858.

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

The case of Challa Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of AP and its subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Court in State of AP v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy brought attention to a crucial principle regarding the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the protection of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

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.

Question for Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
Try yourself:
What is the origin of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India?
View Solution

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is a legal principle designed to shield the government from certain lawsuits. Essentially, this doctrine stipulates that the government cannot be taken to court without its consent. The underlying rationale is rooted in the belief that the government, acting in the best interests of the country and its citizens, should not be held accountable for every mistake or harm resulting from its actions. However, it's crucial to note that sovereign immunity is not an absolute protection. There are situations in which the government can be sued, particularly when it operates similarly to a regular person or business rather than a government entity. The application of sovereign immunity can vary across countries and legal systems, and its purpose is to strike a balance between the government's authority and individuals' rights to seek justice.

The document Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams is a part of the Judiciary Exams Course Civil Law for Judiciary Exams.
All you need of Judiciary Exams at this link: Judiciary Exams
253 docs|259 tests

Up next

FAQs on Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity - Civil Law for Judiciary Exams

1. What is the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine?
Ans. The Sovereign Immunity Doctrine is a legal principle that states that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine protects the government from being held liable for certain actions or decisions.
2. What is the history of the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India?
Ans. The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India has its origins in British common law. It was initially based on the principle that the King could do no wrong. Over time, the doctrine has evolved in India through various court decisions and legislative enactments.
3. How has the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity evolved in India in relation to Torts and Administrative Law?
Ans. In India, the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity has evolved to strike a balance between protecting the government from unwarranted litigation and ensuring that individuals have a remedy for wrongs committed by the government. Courts have recognized certain exceptions to sovereign immunity in cases of torts and administrative law.
4. Are there any Constitutional provisions in India related to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?
Ans. Yes, Article 300 of the Indian Constitution specifically deals with the liability of the government. It states that the government of India and the governments of the states may sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs.
5. What are some frequently asked questions related to the Judiciary exams on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?
Ans. Some common questions asked in Judiciary exams related to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity include defining the doctrine, explaining its evolution in India, discussing its application in torts and administrative law, and highlighting any relevant constitutional provisions.
253 docs|259 tests
Download as PDF

Up next

Explore Courses for Judiciary Exams exam
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Related Searches

pdf

,

past year papers

,

Exam

,

Viva Questions

,

Free

,

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams

,

ppt

,

video lectures

,

MCQs

,

Extra Questions

,

Semester Notes

,

practice quizzes

,

Important questions

,

Summary

,

Objective type Questions

,

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams

,

Previous Year Questions with Solutions

,

Sample Paper

,

study material

,

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams

,

shortcuts and tricks

,

mock tests for examination

;