An analysis of Sovereign and non sovereign functions of the state with case law
Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions of the State — An Analysis
What are Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions?
Sovereign Functions:
These are functions that the state performs as a supreme authority and which are exclusive to the government. These functions typically involve the exercise of governmental powers for the welfare and regulation of society, including law enforcement, defense, administration of justice, taxation, and public order.
Non-Sovereign Functions:
These are functions which the state performs in a capacity similar to that of a private individual or corporation, often commercial or ministerial in nature. These functions are not exclusive to the government and could be carried out by private entities as well, such as running hospitals, markets, or transport services.
Importance of Distinguishing Between Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions
Legal liability: The doctrine of sovereign immunity typically protects the state from liability when performing sovereign functions but not when performing non-sovereign functions.
Judicial scrutiny: Courts are more likely to intervene in non-sovereign functions, especially in tort claims.
Administrative control: Different rules and responsibilities apply depending on the function’s nature.
Detailed Explanation with Case Laws
1. D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993)
Summary:
This case is pivotal in clarifying the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions and their impact on government liability.
Facts:
The government was operating a public transport service and an accident occurred, causing injury.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that running a transport service is a non-sovereign (commercial) function.
Therefore, the government could be held liable for negligence like any private party.
The government cannot claim immunity from tort liability when engaged in non-sovereign functions.
Impact:
Established that the state is liable in tort for non-sovereign functions.
Carved out a clear distinction, denying sovereign immunity for commercial activities.
2. R.D. Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Summary:
In this case, the court considered the nature of functions performed by the Airport Authority of India.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the authority’s arbitrary refusal to renew a license.
Judgment:
The Court observed that the Airport Authority performs both sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
For example, licensing is sovereign; running commercial activities like shops is non-sovereign.
The authority must act fairly and not arbitrarily in both functions.
Impact:
Acknowledged that state agencies can perform dual functions.
Administrative law principles apply irrespective of function type.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Subhagwanti (1966)
Summary:
The Court analyzed liability for negligence by the Municipal Corporation.
Facts:
Injuries caused due to poorly maintained public roads.
Judgment:
The Court held that maintenance of public roads is a sovereign function.
However, in cases of negligence causing harm, the Corporation can be held liable.
Sovereign immunity is not absolute and does not cover negligence in performing public duties.
Impact:
Clarified that sovereign functions may still entail liability for negligence.
Marked a shift toward accountability even in sovereign functions.
4. State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar (1990)
Summary:
This case dealt with the issue of sovereign immunity in the context of police action.
Facts:
The petitioner alleged police negligence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that police functions are sovereign functions.
The state enjoys immunity from liability for tort in such functions unless there is malice or mala fide action.
Sovereign immunity protects government in essential state functions like law enforcement.
Impact:
Reinforced immunity for sovereign functions unless malafide.
Protected the state from frivolous claims during sovereign acts.
5. Commissioner of Police vs Mehar Singh (1968)
Summary:
Considered tort liability of police.
Facts:
Police caused damage while performing their duties.
Judgment:
The Court reiterated that police acts in maintaining public order are sovereign functions.
However, if the police act negligently or maliciously, they can be held liable.
Sovereign immunity does not apply when the act is outside the scope of lawful authority.
Impact:
Introduced exceptions to sovereign immunity.
Ensured accountability of police in misconduct.
Summary of Principles from These Cases
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd. | State liable for non-sovereign (commercial) functions |
| R.D. Shetty vs International Airport Authority | State agencies perform both sovereign and non-sovereign functions |
| Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Subhagwanti | Liability possible even in sovereign functions if negligence exists |
| State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar | Sovereign immunity applies to police (sovereign) functions unless malafide |
| Commissioner of Police vs Mehar Singh | Police liable for torts outside lawful authority |
Conclusion
The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is crucial in determining the state's liability and the applicability of sovereign immunity. While sovereign functions enjoy immunity to ensure smooth functioning of government, this immunity is not absolute and is subject to exceptions, especially in cases of negligence or malice.
Non-sovereign functions, being commercial or ministerial, expose the state to liability similar to that of private individuals. The judiciary has thus struck a balance between protecting government functions and safeguarding citizens’ rights by holding the government accountable where appropriate.
RELATED Blog
0 comments