Government Liability in Torts | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Crown Proceedings Act, 1947: In England, this Act established that the State could be held liable for torts committed by its servants, regardless of whether the actions were in discharge of legal obligations.
• Indian Legal Context: In India, the State could argue a defence if the tortious act was committed in the course of statutory functions by its servants. However, this defence applies only when the functions were exercised as a delegation of sovereign power.
• Kasturi Lal's Case: If a government servant commits a tort while performing non-sovereign functions, the State is liable. This principle was established in cases like Kasturi Lal's and State of U.P. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
• Changing Jurisprudence: The perceived injustice of Kasturi Lal's decision has led to its diminishing influence. Courts now hold the State liable for loss or damage to property or individuals more frequently.
• Common Cause Case: The Supreme Court, in this case, indicated that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is less relevant today, further weakening the precedential strength of Kasturi Lal's case.
• Lack of Legislation: India lacks proper legislation governing the vicarious liability of the State. This legal area is left to judicial interpretation, leading to uncertainty for citizens regarding the law.
• Judicial Development: The courts are tasked with evolving the law on vicarious liability based on judicial perspectives, rather than a clear legislative framework.
• Public Clarity: The absence of definitive legislation means that citizens cannot easily ascertain their legal standing in matters of State liability.

State Liability and Vicarious Liability: An Overview

State liability refers to the circumstances under which the government can be held responsible for the actions of its employees. Vicarious liability, on the other hand, deals with the situations where one party is held liable for the actions of another, typically within an employer-employee relationship.

Understanding these concepts is crucial for determining the accountability of the State in various legal scenarios, especially in the context of torts committed by its servants.

Key Points

• State liability involves holding the government accountable for the actions of its employees.
• Vicarious liability pertains to the responsibility of one party for the actions of another, often seen in employer-employee relationships.

Judicial Interpretation and Legislative Gaps

The legal landscape surrounding vicarious liability of the State is characterized by a significant gap in legislation. This absence of clear legal guidelines has left the interpretation of such liability primarily in the hands of the judiciary.

As a result, citizens face uncertainty regarding the application of the law in cases involving State liability.

Judicial Development

• The courts are responsible for shaping the law on vicarious liability based on judicial perspectives.
• This development occurs in the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework, leading to varying interpretations and applications of the law.

Public Clarity

The lack of definitive legislation creates challenges for citizens in understanding their legal standing concerning State liability. Without clear legal parameters, individuals may find it difficult to ascertain their rights and the extent of State accountability in different scenarios.

In summary, the interplay between judicial interpretation and the absence of legislative clarity significantly impacts the understanding and application of vicarious liability concerning the State.

Key Concepts in State Liability

State liability and vicarious liability are crucial legal concepts that determine the circumstances under which the State can be held accountable for the actions of its employees. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the nuances of legal accountability in the context of government actions.

State Liability

• State liability refers to the legal responsibility of the government for the actions or omissions of its employees while performing their official duties.
• The State can be held liable for torts committed by its servants in the course of their employment, provided these actions are not in the exercise of sovereign functions.
• Sovereign functions are those tasks that can only be performed by the State, such as maintaining law and order, defense, and administration of justice.

Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions

• Understanding the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is crucial in determining State liability.
• Sovereign functions include activities like maintaining the armed forces, law enforcement, and judicial administration.
• Non-sovereign functions encompass activities such as trade, commerce, welfare services, and routine administrative tasks.

Judicial Precedents

• Judicial decisions play a significant role in shaping the understanding of State liability and vicarious liability.
• Court rulings provide interpretations and clarifications on the applicability of these concepts in various scenarios.
• Recent Supreme Court decisions may influence the direction of legal interpretations in this area.

Social Justice and Welfare State

• The evolving concepts of social justice and the welfare state impact the application of state liability and vicarious liability.
• Court interpretations may align with contemporary notions of social justice, reflecting the changing dynamics of governance and accountability.

Legislative Framework

• The absence of a clear legislative framework governing state liability and vicarious liability creates challenges in the legal landscape.
• Legislative clarity can provide a more structured approach to determining the circumstances under which the State can be held liable for the actions of its employees.

Recent Supreme Court Rulings on State Liability

The recent rulings by the Supreme Court in India have brought significant changes to the understanding of state liability, particularly concerning torts committed by government employees during the exercise of non-sovereign functions. Here are the key points:

Supreme Court's Shift in Stance

• The Supreme Court has moved away from the earlier precedent set in Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P., where the State was absolved of liability for torts committed by its employees under sovereign powers.
• In recent judgments, the court has emphasized the need for the State to be held accountable for the actions of its employees, even when exercising functions that were previously considered sovereign.

Case Illustrations

• In cases like Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and State of Haryana v. Rajender Singh, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that the State can be liable for torts committed by its employees during the performance of their duties, irrespective of whether the functions were classified as sovereign or non-sovereign.
• These rulings highlight a shift towards greater accountability of the State in ensuring that its employees act within the bounds of the law and do not commit tortious acts while performing their duties.

Implications for Vicarious Liability

• The recent Supreme Court decisions suggest a trend towards expanding the scope of vicarious liability for the State, indicating that it may be held responsible for a broader range of actions by its employees.
• This shift aligns with contemporary notions of social justice and accountability, reflecting a more nuanced understanding of the State's responsibilities in a welfare-oriented legal framework.

In summary, the recent Supreme Court rulings represent a significant departure from traditional views on state liability, emphasizing the need for accountability and responsibility in the actions of government employees. This evolution reflects changing societal expectations and the pursuit of justice within the framework of a welfare state.

Instances of "Non-Sovereign" Functions

Instances of "non-sovereign" functions where the government may be held liable include:

• Maintenance of Dockyard: As seen in the P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. case.
• Public Works Department Truck: A truck belonging to the public works department carrying materials for road bridge construction (Rap Raw Verses The Punjab State).
• Famine Relief Work: Involved in cases like Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan.
• Government Jeep Usage: A government jeep car taken from the workshop to the Collector's bungalow for the Collector's use (State of Rajasthan v. Vidjawati).
• Transporting Ailing Children: Taking ailing children to a Primary Health Centre using a government carrier (Indian Insurance Co. Assn. Pool v. Radbabai).
• Transporting Military Jawans: Carrying military jawans from the railway station to the unit headquarters (Union of India v. Savita Sharma). This also includes carrying ration and sepoys within the country during peacetime after hostilities (Pushpa Thakur v. UOI).
• Transporting Air Force Officers: Transporting Air Force officers within Delhi for sports activities like hockey and basketball (Satya Wati Devi v. UOI), or bringing back military officers from exercises to the college of combat.
• Training New M.T. Recruits: Taking a truck for training new Motor Transport recruits (Iqbal Kaur v. Chief of Army Staff).
• Transporting Equipment to Military Training School: Transporting machines and equipment to a military training school (Union of India v. Sugrabai).
• Collecting Firewood by Military Jawans: Military jawans collecting firewood found by a riverside for campfire and fuel purposes (Roop Lal v. UOI).

Service (Facility) Provided to Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986

In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, it was determined that a 'service' or 'facility' offered to a 'consumer' as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not fall under the category of a 'sovereign' function.