Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects a state from being sued without its consent. In India, the concept of sovereign immunity has evolved significantly over the years, influenced by both colonial origins and Indian judicial interpretation. This article explores the evolution of sovereign immunity in India, its origins in other parts of the world, and how Indian jurisprudence has interpreted and applied this doctrine.
Sovereign immunity means that the state cannot be held liable for the actions considered to be sovereign functions. This defense bars individuals from claiming compensation from the state for any wrongs committed by the state or its employees during the course of these functions. Over the years, the Indian state has frequently invoked sovereign immunity, often to the detriment of individual rights.
In the UK, no action could be brought directly against the monarch due to the belief that the king could not be subject to his own courts. The Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 significantly altered this by making the Crown liable in tort to the same extent as a private individual. However, there were still restrictions, particularly concerning actions or omissions carried out in the performance of judicial duties or by military personnel.
In the US, sovereign immunity traditionally protected the state from lawsuits without its consent. The doctrine was embedded in the 11th Amendment, which granted states immunity from suits in federal courts. However, there has been a gradual movement away from this absolute immunity, with judicial decisions limiting the doctrine's scope and ensuring greater accountability of the state.
Several US state courts have abrogated or limited sovereign immunity, describing it as outdated and unjust. This shift is based on the principle that the identity of the defendant should not determine the plaintiff's opportunity for justice. Modern tort law emphasizes governmental responsibility, reflecting the extensive influence of the state in private lives.
India does not have specific legislation governing sovereign immunity as seen in the UK. Article 300 of the Indian Constitution states that the Union and state governments may sue or be sued. However, the circumstances under which this can happen are not explicitly defined, leaving the matter largely to judicial interpretation.
P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India
This case distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the state. The court ruled that the government would be liable for non-sovereign functions, such as maintaining a dockyard, but not for sovereign functions.
Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.
This case reinforced the distinction made in the P & O Steam Navigation case. The Supreme Court held that the state could not be held liable for acts committed during the exercise of sovereign functions, such as the negligence of police officers in handling seized property.
Indian courts have developed jurisprudence to hold the state accountable despite the defense of sovereign immunity. This shift began with cases like Saheli v. Commissioner of Police and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, where the courts awarded compensation for violations of fundamental rights under public law, bypassing the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity.
In cases like Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of AP, the courts have emphasized that sovereign immunity should not apply when the state engages in commercial activities or violates fundamental rights. This aligns with the traditional Indian concept of governance, where even monarchs were subject to the rule of law.
In landmark cases such as Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of compensating victims for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental rights. These decisions highlight the state's vicarious liability for the tortious acts of its employees, emphasizing the need for a legal framework to address such violations.
The evolution of sovereign immunity in India reflects a transition from strict adherence to the doctrine to a more nuanced approach that prioritizes individual rights. While the courts have made significant strides in holding the state accountable, there is still a need for clear legislation defining sovereign and non-sovereign functions to minimize ambiguity. This would ensure greater accountability and protection of individual rights, aligning with the principles of justice and fairness in a democratic society.
Leave a comment