Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Overview: Sovereign immunity is a legal concept that shields a sovereign state or government from lawsuits without its explicit consent.
• Essence: It grants immunity to governments from both civil and criminal litigation, preventing individuals from suing the government without prior permission.
• Foundation: Rooted in the belief that the state, as the supreme authority, cannot be held accountable for its actions as it operates in the interest of the nation and its people.
• Variations: The application of sovereign immunity can differ across nations and legal systems, leading to ongoing debates and legal interpretations on its boundaries.

Meaning of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

• Protective Shield: Sovereign immunity shields a state from civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and legal liability for its actions.
• Historical Basis: Traces back to the legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong," absolving the monarch from personal responsibility for misconduct.
• Common Law Principle: Reflects the idea that the sovereign or its agents cannot be held liable for their actions, aligning with the principle that the king is immune from legal consequences.

History of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India

• Introduction of Sovereign Immunity in India:
  • Derived from British Common Law
  • King's Immunity from Legal Actions
  • Impact of British Colonial Rule on Indian Legal System
• Development and Application in Indian Courts:
  • Prevalence in Indian Courts until Recent Times
  • Challenges Faced by Claimants
  • Court Responses to Legitimate Claims
• Evolving Legal Perspective:
  • Narrowing of Sovereign Powers by Indian Courts
  • Recognition of Outdated Nature by Law Commission
  • Failed Attempts at Legislative Elimination
  • Judicial Role in Assessing Compatibility

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

• Origin of Sovereign Immunity Doctrine in India: The concept of sovereign immunity in India was first observed in the case of P & O Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State. The incident involved an employee of the plaintiff's company who was harmed due to the negligence of government employees.
• Classification of Actions: The court differentiated between actions performed in the exercise of sovereign authority and those carried out in non-sovereign functions, where liability was acknowledged only in the latter case.
• Scope of Sovereign Functions: In the case of Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji, an action executed in the exercise of a sovereign function was deemed justifiable, even if not feasible for a private individual.
• License Denial and Sovereign Functions: Nobin Chunder Dey v. Secretary of State highlighted that granting or denying licenses falls under sovereign functions, thus exempt from the State's tort liability.
• Liability in Accidents: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati established that the government could be held liable for the negligence of its employees, rejecting the application of sovereign immunity.
• Police Power and Immunity: In Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P, the Supreme Court exempted the state from liability regarding the misuse of police power, considering it a sovereign act.
• Compensation for Unlawful Detention: Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar and Bhim Singh v. State of Rajasthan set precedents by awarding compensation for illegal detention, expanding the scope of sovereign immunity.

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 of 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.

Conclusion

• The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is a legal principle designed to protect the government from certain types of lawsuits. It operates on the premise that the government, as an entity acting in the interest of the public, should be shielded from legal liability for its actions.
• This doctrine essentially means that individuals cannot sue the government without its consent. The rationale behind this rule is to prevent the government from being inundated with lawsuits for every decision or action it takes, which could potentially hinder its ability to function effectively.
• However, it's important to note that sovereign immunity is not an absolute protection. There are exceptions to this doctrine, particularly in cases where the government engages in activities or behaves in a manner similar to that of a private individual or business. In such instances, the government may be subject to legal action just like any other entity.
• The application of sovereign immunity can vary depending on the jurisdiction and legal system. Courts may consider factors such as the nature of the government's actions, the extent of its involvement in particular activities, and the specific laws governing immunity in a given context.
• In essence, sovereign immunity serves as a mechanism to balance the government's authority and responsibilities with the rights of individuals to seek legal recourse. It ensures that while the government is afforded certain protections, individuals still have avenues for seeking justice when warranted.