State Liablity Of Torts

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

Art 300 - VL of state same as prior to commencement of constn

Question 2

2.

Answer 2

Po steam navigation case vs sec of india- liable only if the tort was committed while performing a non soverign function

Question 3

3.

Answer 3

PO case was before the adoption of constn where there was no concept of welfare state. Only function - law and order

Question 4

4.

Answer 4

But post constn - multifarious funct by state and pvt players. So the concept of soverign function needed to be redefined.

Also since FR to citizens which state cannot violate - WHO IS SOVERIGN

Question 5

5.

Answer 5

Kasturilal vs state - court didn’t overturn the previous position ( po steam case) . Exoressed regret and said that the remedy lies with the legislature

Question 6

6.

Answer 6

Then the question arose whether a doctrine of ordinary law ( soverign immunity) can overtake constn law ( art 32 )

Question 7

7.

Answer 7

Nagendra rao vs state -
1. Ancillary or incidental function of the state cannot claim soverign immunity.

2. Soverign function- defence, l&o, justice - in this 3 cases soverign immunity- except when art 21 is violated

Question 8

8.

Answer 8

Thus the doctrine of soverign immunity has been diluted but has not been exoressly overuled and is still applicable but not in cases where art 21 has been violated

Ex: PUSHPA THAKUR CASE : accident caused by negligence of driver of military truck , sovereign immunity not available to the state

Question 9

9.

Answer 9

Nilabeti behra- custodial death

Rudal shah case - undertrial underwent 14 years of imprisonment.

Question 10

10.

Answer 10

As noted by J AS ANAND nilabeti behra case - the duty of public law to not just to civilise power, but also to assure citizens that they live under a legal system which to protect and preserve their interest and rights

Law commission report that govt (liablity in torts) bill 1967 which is yet to become law should be recodified and passed