An analysis on the liability of Government in Tort
Liability of Government in Tort
1. Introduction
The liability of the government in tort refers to the circumstances in which the government can be held responsible for civil wrongs committed by it or its servants and be ordered to pay compensation.
2. General Principles
Sovereign Immunity: Traditionally, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government (state) was immune from liability in tort. This principle originates from English law where the monarch (the "Crown") could not be sued without consent.
Changing Nature of Government: With democracy and welfare state ideals, the government performs public and commercial functions. This necessitates accountability and compensation for negligence.
Modern Position: The Indian government is liable in tort for wrongful acts committed by its servants in the course of their official duties unless protected by a statute or specific immunity.
Distinction:
Sovereign Acts (Jus Imperii): Acts done as an exercise of government authority (e.g., passing laws, police actions) – usually immune.
Non-Sovereign Acts (Jus Gestionis): Acts of a commercial or private nature (e.g., running a hotel, public transport) – liable.
3. Liability in Tort: The Indian Position
The government can be held liable in tort if it commits a civil wrong (negligence, nuisance, trespass, etc.) causing damage to a citizen.
Liability arises mainly under:
Negligence (failure to take reasonable care).
Nuisance.
Breach of statutory duty (in some cases).
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is limited and does not provide absolute protection.
4. Conditions for Government Liability
The tortious act must be committed by a government servant or agency.
The act must be done in the course of official duty.
The act must be tortious and cause damage to a person.
No statutory or constitutional immunity should apply.
The government is liable to pay compensation or damages.
5. Important Case Laws and Their Analysis
Case 1: R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958) SCR 279
Facts:
This landmark case discussed the concept of liability of the government in tort.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the government is liable for the tortious acts of its servants just like a private person. The government’s immunity is not absolute.
Importance:
Established that the government can be sued for negligence or tort.
Held that liability arises when the government performs non-sovereign functions.
Drew distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
Case 2: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
Facts:
The case dealt with environmental pollution caused by Oleum gas leak from a factory.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the government and industries engaged in hazardous activities have an absolute liability to compensate victims.
Importance:
Introduced the concept of absolute liability for hazardous industries.
Government cannot escape liability when public safety is compromised.
Expanded tort liability to cover environmental harm.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) SCR 151
Facts:
The government servant negligently caused damage to the plaintiff.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that the government is liable in tort for negligence of its servants in the course of their duties.
Importance:
Reinforced the principle that government is liable for negligence like any other person.
No special immunity in such cases.
Case 4: Balkrishna Ramchandra v. State of Maharashtra (1968) AIR 173
Facts:
The government was sued for damages arising from wrongful acts by its employees.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that immunity would not apply if government servants commit torts.
Importance:
Affirmed liability of government in tort.
Highlighted the need for compensating victims of government negligence.
Case 5: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966) AIR 1757
Facts:
Negligence of municipal authorities caused injury to plaintiff.
Judgment:
The court held municipal corporation liable for tortious acts of its servants.
Importance:
Liability of local government bodies for torts.
Emphasized the accountability of government authorities at all levels.
Case 6: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 179
Facts:
Concerned government's failure to provide safe drinking water leading to health hazards.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that government is liable to protect public health and can be held liable for negligence in this duty.
Importance:
Expanded the scope of tort liability towards protection of fundamental rights.
Government liable for omissions affecting public health and safety.
Case 7: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
Death in police custody due to negligence and abuse.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation to the deceased’s family, holding the government liable for the tort of its servants.
Importance:
Reinforced government's liability for acts of police.
Recognized right to compensation under Article 21 (Right to Life).
6. Exceptions to Government Liability
Acts of sovereign authority (e.g., legislative acts, judicial functions, police actions in maintenance of public order).
Acts done in good faith or due to statutory immunity.
Discretionary functions exercised by the government are generally immune from tort liability.
7. Conclusion
The government in India is liable in tort for wrongful acts done by its servants, especially in non-sovereign functions.
There is no absolute immunity; the government must compensate victims for negligence or wrongful acts.
The judiciary has played a key role in ensuring accountability and justice.
The law balances the need for government efficiency with protection of citizens' rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments