Liability of State in Tort | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Liability of State in Tort

• In England, the Government was not considered an 'honest man.' It was fundamental to the rule of law that the Crown, like other public authorities, should bear legal liability and be answerable for wrongs done to its subjects. The expansion of governmental activity in the late nineteenth century made it unacceptable for the Government, in the name of the Crown, to be exempt from ordinary law.
• English law has maintained that the King is subject to law and can commit breaches thereof. Historically, there were practical problems in holding the King liable for illegal acts because rights depended on remedies, and there was no agency to enforce law against the King. All courts were his, and he could not be sued without his consent.
• After the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the Crown could be treated as an ordinary litigant. In India, the maxim 'the King can do no wrong' was never accepted. The Union and States are legal persons and can be held liable for breach of contract and in tort.

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

• The State, being a legal entity, acts through human agency, its servants. When discussing the tortious liability of the State, it is essentially the liability of the State for the tortious acts of its servants that is considered.
• Vicarious liability refers to holding one person liable for the act or omission of another. The master may be liable for the torts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
• The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on three principles:
• Respondeat superior(Let the principal be liable); and
• Qui facit per alium facit per se(He who does an act through another does it himself)
• Socialisation of Compensation
• There is no reason why this doctrine should not be applied to the Crown concerning torts committed by its servants.
• If the Crown is not held vicariously liable for such torts, the aggrieved party, despite sustaining a legal injury, would have no effective remedy, as the government servant may lack sufficient means to satisfy the judgment against him.

Constitutional Provisions

• Under Article 294(b) of the Constitution, the liability of the Union Government or a State Government may arise 'out of any contract or otherwise.' The term 'otherwise' implies that the liability may extend to tortious acts as well.
• Article 300(1) fixes the extent of such liability, stating that the liability of the Union of India or a State Government will be the same as that of the Dominion of India and the Provinces before the Constitution's commencement.
• In State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati, a jeep owned and maintained by the State of Rajasthan for the official use of the district Collector was involved in an accident due to the driver's rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable for the driver's actions.
• The court did not delve into whether the act was a sovereign one but established that the rule of immunity based on English law was not applicable in India.
• Subsequent cases determined liability based on whether the act was a 'sovereign function' or a 'non-sovereign function.' If the act was sovereign, the State could not be held liable; if non-sovereign, the State would be liable.
• However, formulating a clear test to differentiate between sovereign and non-sovereign functions proved challenging. The strict categorization of State functions into sovereign and non-sovereign was deemed unsound.
• Over time, the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity became less relevant as the concept of sovereignty evolved. Sovereignty now resides with the people, and actions of the Government, even those concerning relations between independent States, are subject to judicial scrutiny.
• The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is sometimes framed as regal and non-regal functions. In the former, the Government is not liable; in the latter, it is liable.
• Moreover, the concept of public interest has transformed, and no legal or political system can place the State above the law or deny citizens remedies for negligent acts of its officers.
• Recent judicial trends favor holding the State liable for tortious acts by its servants. Courts have awarded compensation in cases of police brutality, wrongful arrests, and other misconduct by State officials, criticizing the inhumane behavior of such officials.