Scribd
Upload
37 views3 pages

State Liability

The document discusses the doctrine of State Liability, which outlines when the State can be held accountable for the actions of its officials, emphasizing the importance of accountability in a welfare State. It covers the doctrine of sovereign immunity, contractual liability under Article 299, quasi-contractual liability, and tortious liability, distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Additionally, it highlights the evolution of compensatory jurisprudence in cases of fundamental rights violations, establishing that compensation can be awarded under public law remedies.

Uploaded by

Pallabi Pradhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views3 pages

State Liability

The document discusses the doctrine of State Liability, which outlines when the State can be held accountable for the actions of its officials, emphasizing the importance of accountability in a welfare State. It covers the doctrine of sovereign immunity, contractual liability under Article 299, quasi-contractual liability, and tortious liability, distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Additionally, it highlights the evolution of compensatory jurisprudence in cases of fundamental rights violations, establishing that compensation can be awarded under public law remedies.

Uploaded by

Pallabi Pradhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

State Liability: Sovereign Immunity, Contractual and Tortious Liability, and

Compensatory Jurisprudence

The doctrine of State Liability deals with the circumstances under which the State
(Government) can be held legally responsible for the acts of its officials or agents. In a
welfare State, where government activities extend to nearly every aspect of life,
accountability and remedy for wrongful acts of the State are fundamental to the Rule of
Law.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

• The doctrine of sovereign immunity originates from the maxim:

“The King can do no wrong.”

• It shields the State from legal liability, especially for acts committed in its sovereign
capacity.

Position in India

• Under British colonial rule, this doctrine was fully recognized.


• Post-independence, Indian courts have diluted its application, especially where
fundamental rights or human rights are involved.

Liability of State in Contract

Constitutional Provision – Article 299

All contracts made by the Union or State must:

• Be expressed in the name of the President or Governor,


• Be executed by authorized persons.

If the formal requirements under Article 299 are not followed, the contract is void and
unenforceable, even if performed.

Case: Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar (1954)

Non-compliance with Article 299 renders a contract void ab initio.

State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar (1962)

The Court held that ratification of a void contract under Article 299 is not permitted.
Quasi-Contractual Liability

Even where formal contract rules aren’t followed, if the State benefits from services,
Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (Doctrine of unjust enrichment) may apply.

Case: State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal (1962)

The State was held liable under quasi-contractual obligations, despite lack of formal
contract.

Liability of Administration in Tort

Tortious Liability

The State may be held liable for torts (civil wrongs) committed by its servants in the
course of employment, unless the act falls under sovereign functions.

Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions

• Sovereign functions: Acts essential to governance (e.g., policing, defense).


• Non-sovereign functions: Commercial, welfare, or public utility services.

Case: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

Government vehicle caused death due to negligence. Held liable, as


maintenance of vehicles was a non-sovereign function.

Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990)


Police assault caused a child’s death. Held liable, and compensation awarded
under Article 21.

State Liability and Compensatory Jurisprudence

Evolution of Compensation under Public Law:

Courts have recognized that where fundamental rights are violated, especially Article
21, compensation can be awarded.

Cases:

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)


Custodial death case. SC held that public law remedy for compensation is available for
violation of fundamental rights.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Guidelines issued for arrest and detention. Held that compensation is a constitutional
remedy.

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)

Wrongful detention for 14 years after acquittal. Court awarded monetary compensation
under Article 21.

You might also like