Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is a legal principle that asserts that a sovereign state or government cannot be subjected to lawsuits without its explicit consent. Essentially, it provides the government with immunity from both civil and criminal litigation, effectively prohibiting individuals from initiating legal actions against the government or its representatives without obtaining prior consent from the government itself.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is rooted in the fundamental belief that the state holds supreme authority and, therefore, cannot be held liable for its decisions, as it acts in the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Understanding the concept of sovereign immunity is pivotal in the realm of constitutional law, as it underpins the way in which the government interacts with its constituents.

It’s important to note that the application of doctrine of sovereign immunity may vary among nations and legal systems and the precise boundaries and extent of this immunity remain subjects of ongoing debate and legal interpretation.

Meaning of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity grants immunity to a sovereign state, protecting it from civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and legal liability for wrongful actions it may commit. This doctrine serves as a shield for the state, providing justification for any wrongs or legal transgressions carried out by the state or its agents.

The roots of doctrine of sovereign immunity can be traced back to the legal maxim “rex non potest peccare,” which translates to “the king can do no wrong.” This doctrine of sovereign immunity is grounded in the Common Law principle that the monarch cannot be held personally responsible for any wrongdoing, negligence, or misconduct and consequently cannot be held liable for the actions of their agents.

History of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in India

The history of India’s doctrine of sovereign immunity can be traced back to the influence of common law brought to the country during British colonial rule. According to common law principles in the United Kingdom, it was established that the King could not be held liable for any wrongdoing and consequently, no legal action could be taken against the King or his representatives for such actions. When the British colonised India, they introduced various new concepts, ideologies, cultures and legal principles to the region, including the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

From the mid-nineteenth century until relatively recently, the concept of sovereign immunity held sway in Indian courts. However, as legitimate claims for damages were presented to the courts and were met with rejection based on this antiquated doctrine, there arose frustration and calls for a reevaluation of its relevance in contemporary legal contexts.

To address this issue and ensure that deserving victims received compensation, Indian courts progressively narrowed the scope of sovereign powers, thereby preventing the dismissal of legitimate claims. Additionally, the Law Commission of India recognised the need to abolish this outdated theory and recommended its elimination in its initial report. Nevertheless, a draft bill aimed at abolishing this doctrine was never passed, largely due to various reasons. Consequently, it was left to the courts to determine whether this doctrine remained compatible with modern legal principles and societal needs.

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

The case of P & O Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State marked the initial instance of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India. The case revolved around an incident in which an employee of the plaintiff’s company was travelling in a carriage pulled by the plaintiff’s horses on a Calcutta roadway. This accident occurred due to the negligence of government employees. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State for India, seeking damages related to the losses incurred as a result of the accident.

In this case, the court’s decision hinged on whether the negligent act was performed in the exercise of a sovereign function. The court established a distinction between actions carried out in the “exercise of sovereign authority” and those conducted during the “exercise of non-sovereign functions,” which are actions that could be performed by private individuals without specific governmental authority. Liability was recognised only when actions fell under non-sovereign functions.

In Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji, a dispute arose during the transportation of salt between Bombay and Madras when the duty on salt increased and the merchant was compelled to cover the difference at the final destination port. The merchant made an unwilling payment and subsequently initiated a legal claim to recover the amount. The court, in this case, held that an action conducted in the exercise of a sovereign function, even if not feasible for a private individual, could still be justified. Notably, the Madras ruling added that the government might not be held accountable for activities related to public safety, even if they do not constitute acts of the State.

In Nobin Chunder Dey v. Secretary of State, the plaintiff sought damages after being wrongfully denied a license to sell certain excisable liquors and drugs, which resulted in the closure of his business. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the claim, asserting that granting or denying licenses falls under sovereign functions and is exempt from the State’s tort liability. This case further solidified the legal distinction between the State’s sovereign and non-sovereign functions, serving as a precedent for subsequent legal judgments.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, the claim for damages was brought by the heirs of an individual who had tragically passed away in an accident caused by the negligence of a government-maintained jeep driver. The jeep was being used for the Collector of Udaipur’s official purposes and was returning from a repair shop at the time of the accident. The Rajasthan High Court, in its judgment, held the State responsible, asserting that the government was not in a superior position compared to the private sector when it came to providing vehicles and employing drivers for civil service.

Consequently, the court rejected the State’s claim for application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity and ruled that the State, in this instance, was akin to any other employer and was liable for the driver’s wrongful actions.

In Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P, a partner of a jewellery firm based in Amritsar went to Meerut to sell gold and silver but was detained by the police under suspicion of possessing stolen property. Although he was released the following day, some of the recovered property could not be returned to him in full due to the theft of gold by the Head Constable, who fled to Pakistan, while the silver was returned. The jewellery firm sued the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking restitution of the ornaments or, alternatively, compensation. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that even if the negligence of employees occurred during their employment by the state, the claim against the state could not be upheld with respect to application of doctrine of sovereign immunity because the employment fell within a category eligible for the special immunity status of sovereign power.

However, there was a different stance adopted by the Apex Court in this case, leading to confusion. Contrary to the guidelines established in the P & O Steam Navigation decision, the Supreme Court in this judgment made a distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign activities of the state and concluded that the misuse of police power constituted a sovereign act, thus exempting the State from liability.

In Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, Rudal Shah, the petitioner, had been unjustly detained in prison for over 14 years. In his habeas corpus petition, he sought immediate release along with compensation for rehabilitation, medical expenses and legal detention costs. In this case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, awarded damages in the writ petition itself.

The principle established in Rudal Shah was subsequently expanded in Bhim Singh v. State of Rajasthan to encompass cases of wrongful confinement. In this case, the Apex Court awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for illegal arrest and detention in a petition filed under Article 32.

Constitutional Provisions on Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

The doctrine of sovereign immunity in Indian courts persisted from the mid-nineteenth century until very recently. When legitimate claims for damages were brought before the courts and dismissed based on an outdated concept that seemed to lack relevance, there were frequent frustrations and calls for reform. Indian courts continued to narrow the scope of sovereign powers to ensure that genuine victims could receive fair compensation.

It’s important to note that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India is not explicitly articulated in the constitutional text but is rather inferred from various provisions of the constitution and other legislative enactments.

One of the key provisions related to sovereign immunity is Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the “Liability of State.” Article 300 has its origins in Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which, in turn, can be traced back to Section 32 of the Government of India Act, 1915 and even further to Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858.

Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, stated 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 establishes a historical lineage, indicating that the liability of the Government of India and the Governments of the States is akin to that of the East India Company before 1858.

Article 300: Liability of State

Article 300 Read as:

(1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State any may, subject to any provision which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.

(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution –

(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and

(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the province or the Indian State in those proceedings.

Article 300 of the Indian Constitution with respect to the doctrine of sovereign immunity can be summarised as follows:

1. The first part of Article 300 outlines the procedure for initiating suits and legal proceedings against or by the Government. It specifies that a State may sue and be sued in the name of the Union of India or the name of the State.

2. The second part of Article 300 stipulates that the Union of India or a State can sue or be sued in matters related to its affairs in the same way that the Dominion of India or a corresponding Indian State would have sued or been sued had the Constitution not been enacted.

3. The third part of Article 300 grants the Parliament or the legislature of a State the authority to enact appropriate provisions concerning the subject matter covered by Article 300(1).

In essence, Article 300 of the Indian Constitution lays out the legal framework for the liability of the State and establishes how legal actions can be initiated against the Government or by the Government itself in various situations.

Role of Article 226 and Article 32

After 1977, there was a notable shift 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, regardless of whether the arrest was found to be illegal or if it was determined that 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 awarded compensation to the petitioner, who had lost her son in police custody. The court’s ruling established several important principles:

Public Law Claim for Compensation: The court recognised the existence of a claim in public law for compensation for violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This claim was seen 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 emphasised 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. In other words, 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 held 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 represented 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 highlighted a crucial principle regarding 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. Tragically, 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, which had contributed 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 a fundamental right and cannot be deprived except through due process of law. It was 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 emphasised that the concept of 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. As such, 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 basic 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 emphasised 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 that shields the government from certain lawsuits.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity means the government can’t be taken to court without its permission. This rule is based on the idea that the government is acting in the best interests of the country and its citizens.

So, it can’t be held responsible for every mistake or harm caused by its actions. However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity isn’t absolute. In some cases, the government can be sued, especially when it acts like a regular person or business rather than a government entity. The specifics of how and when sovereign immunity applies can vary by country and legal system. Overall, it’s a way to balance the government’s authority with the rights of individuals to seek justice.