Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    When State Is Liable For The Acts Committed by Her Officers

    Uploaded by

    Pujari Dharani
    The document discusses the position of state liability in England and India. In England, the Crown had immunity from liability for torts committed by its servants until the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 made the Crown liable like a private individual. In India, there is no clear statutory provision on state liability. The courts have determined that the state is liable for torts committed in the exercise of non-sovereign powers like business and commerce, but not for sovereign powers like defense, law and order, and administration of justice. The document provides examples of cases where the state was and wasn't held liable to determine what constitutes sovereign versus non-sovereign powers and the liability of the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    When State Is Liable For The Acts Committed by Her Officers

    Uploaded by

    Pujari Dharani
    12 views3 pages
    The document discusses the position of state liability in England and India. In England, the Crown had immunity from liability for torts committed by its servants until the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 made the Crown liable like a private individual. In India, there is no clear statutory provision on state liability. The courts have determined that the state is liable for torts committed in the exercise of non-sovereign powers like business and commerce, but not for sovereign powers like defense, law and order, and administration of justice. The document provides examples of cases where the state was and wasn't held liable to determine what constitutes sovereign versus non-sovereign powers and the liability of the state.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    When state is liable for the acts committed by her officers

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the position of state liability in England and India. In England, the Crown had immunity from liability for torts committed by its servants until the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 made the Crown liable like a private individual. In India, there is no clear statutory provision on state liability. The courts have determined that the state is liable for torts committed in the exercise of non-sovereign powers like business and commerce, but not for sovereign powers like defense, law and order, and administration of justice. The document provides examples of cases where the state was and wasn't held liable to determine what constitutes sovereign versus non-sovereign powers and the liability of the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    12 views3 pages

    When State Is Liable For The Acts Committed by Her Officers

    Uploaded by

    Pujari Dharani
    The document discusses the position of state liability in England and India. In England, the Crown had immunity from liability for torts committed by its servants until the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 made the Crown liable like a private individual. In India, there is no clear statutory provision on state liability. The courts have determined that the state is liable for torts committed in the exercise of non-sovereign powers like business and commerce, but not for sovereign powers like defense, law and order, and administration of justice. The document provides examples of cases where the state was and wasn't held liable to determine what constitutes sovereign versus non-sovereign powers and the liability of the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    When state is liable for the acts committed by her officers?

    Position in England

    At Common Law, the Crown could not be sued in tort either for wrong actually
    authorized by it or committed by its servants, in the course of their employment.
    Moreover, no action could lie against the head of the department or other
    superior officials for the acts of their subordinates for relationship between them
    was not of master and servant but of fellow servants. The individual wrongdoer
    was personally liable and he could not take the defence of orders of the Crown,
    or State necessity. The immunity of the Crown from liability did not exempt the
    servant from liability. The result was that, whereas an ordinary master was
    liable vicariously for the wrong done by his servant, the Government was not
    liable for a tort committed by its servant.

    With the increase in the functions of the State, the Crown became one of the
    largest employers of labour in the country. Under these circumstances, the rule
    of immunity for the Crown became highly incompatible with the demands of
    justice. To overcome the shortcomings of the prevailing law and to ensure
    justice, various devices were found out. The position has been entirely changed
    after the passing of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. Now the Crown is liable
    for a tort committed by its servants, just like a private individual.

    Position in India

    Unlike the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (England), we do not have any
    statutory provision mentioning the liability of the State in India. The position of
    State liability as stated in Article 300 of the Constitution of India is as under:

    "The Government of India may sue and be sued by the name of Union of India
    and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State ….”

    Article 300, thus, provides that the Union of India and the States are juristic
    persons for the purpose of suit or proceedings. Although the Union of India and
    State Governments can sue and be sued but the circumstances under which that
    can be done have not been mentioned. The position prevailing before the
    commencement of the Constitution, therefore, remains unchanged though the
    Parliament and the State Legislature have been empowered to pass laws to
    change the position.

    On the other hand, there is another set of authorities according to which the
    State is liable for the torts of its servants except when an act done is an 'Act of
    State'. 'Act of State' is a defence which the State cannot have against its own
    subjects. According to this view, therefore, the State is liable towards its own
    subjects, just like an ordinary employer.

    The following position emerges from the various decisions:

    (1) The liability of the Government, i.e., the Union of India and the States is the
    same as was that of the East India Company.

    (2) The Government is not liable for the torts committed by its servants in
    exercise of sovereign powers. The Government is liable for the torts which have
    been committed in exercise of non-sovereign powers.

    (3) Sovereign powers mean powers which can be lawfully exercised only by a
    sovereign or by a person to whom such powers have been delegated.

    (4) There are no well-defined tests to know what are sovereign powers.
    Functions like maintenance of defence forces, various departments of the
    Government for maintenance of law and order and proper administration of the
    country, and the machinery for the administration of justice can be included in
    sovereign functions. Functions relating to trade, business and commerce and the
    welfare activities are amongst the non-sovereign functions. Broadly speaking,
    such functions, in which private individual can be engaged in, are not sovereign
    functions.

    Police firing— A person died in the irresponsible act of the police in aimlessly
    firing at the bus, in which the said deceased was travelling as a passenger. State
    is vicariously liable to compensate legal representatives and dependants of the
    deceased.

    Negligence of military servants

    Although the maintenance of the army is a sovereign function but this does not
    necessarily mean that the State will be immune from liability for any tortious
    act committed by the army personnel. Here also, a distinction has to be drawn
    between acts which could be done by the Government in the exercise of
    sovereign powers and acts which could have been equally done by a private
    individual. There is no hard and fast rule to distinguish sovereign and non-
    sovereign functions.

    Acts done in exercise of Sovereign Powers

    In Union of India v. Harbans Singh, meals were being carried from the
    cantonment, Delhi for being distributed to military personnel on duty. The truck
    carrying meals belonged to the military department and was being driven by a
    military driver. It caused an accident resulting in the death of a person. It was
    held that the act was being done in exercise of sovereign power, and, therefore,
    the State could not be made liable for the same.

    Pg. 158

    Acts done in exercise of non-sovereign powers

    Pg. 159

    Sovereign immunity – Pg. 164

    Sovereign’s personal immunity – Pg. 165

    Defence of SI – Pg. 168

    You might also like