Sovereign Immunity Flashcards
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 following Common Law principle
1. Pin the not be sued by anyone because he is beyond all jurisdiction
2. Sovereign is not answerable to his subjects as whatever he does if done in the interest of general public
3. Sovereign being bound by law will not permit any of it’s servant to do any act which is prohibited by law
Position in India
Article 300 declares union and states are juristic person and con sue or be sued in the like cases as a dominion.Or states might have been sued if the constitution had not been enacted.
Difference between sovereign and Non sovereign function was First time drawn peninsula and oriental steam navigation co v secretary of state for india 1861 Bombay by cj peacock distinction was drawn between the sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the East India Company. It was held that, if the act was done in the exercise of sovereign functions, the East India Company would not have been liable, but if the runction was a non-sovereign one, i.e., which could have been performed by a private individual without any delegation of power by the Government, the Company would have been liable. Maintenance of the dockyard was considered to be a non-sovereign function and, as such, the Government was held liable
Further development after peninsula and oriental steam navigation co v secretary of state for india Bombay
In Vidyawati v. Lokumal, the plaintiff’s husband died after being knocked down by a Government jeep car which was driven rashly and negligently by an employee of the State of Rajasthan. At the time of the accident, the car was being taken from the workshop to the Collector’s bungalow for the Collector’s use. In an action against the State of Rajasthan the State was held liable. The Rajasthan High Court did not find any reason for treating the State differently from an ordinary employer and held that the State of Rajasthan was liable for the wrong of the driver. According to Dave J.The State is no longer a mere Police State and this country has made vast progress since the above decision (Peninsular Case) was made. Ours is now a welfare state and it is in the process of becoming a full fledged socialistic state Everyday, it is engaging itself in numerous activities in which any ordinary person or group of persons can engage himself or themselves. Under the drcumstances, there is all the more reason that it should not be treated differently from other ordinary employers when it is engaging itself in activities in which any private person can enagage himself.
On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and endorsed the view expressed by it.
In State of Rajasthaned Vidyawati, the observations made by the Supreme Court may also be noted. In this connection, it has to be remembered that under the Constitution, we have established a welfare State, whose functions are not confined only to maintaining law and order, but extend to engaging in all activities including Industry, public transport, State trading te name only a few of them, in se far as the State activities have such wide ramifications involving not only the use of sovereign powers but also its powers as emplovers in so many public sectors. it is too much to claim that the State should be immune from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such.
In spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidyawati’s case, the position is not very certain and satisfactory. The Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. has again stated that if the act of the Government servant was one which could be considered to be in delegation of sovereign powers, the State would be exempt from liability, otherwise not
N nagendra rao v s
