Article 300 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 300 of the Constitution of India
Title: Suits and proceedings
Text of Article 300:
(1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India, and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State, and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.
(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution—
(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted,
(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted.
Explanation and Purpose:
Article 300(1) recognizes that the Union or State Governments can sue or be sued in a court of law like any ordinary person or legal entity, unless a law provides otherwise.
This provision continues the British legal legacy, ensuring legal accountability of governments.
Article 300(2) provides for a smooth transition from pre-Constitution legal proceedings by substituting the Union and States in place of the Dominion and Provinces.
✅ Key Takeaways:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Who can sue/be sued | Union of India and individual States |
| In what name? | “Union of India” or the name of the State (e.g., “State of Maharashtra”) |
| Scope | Legal proceedings can relate to contracts, torts (civil wrongs), etc. |
| Continuity clause | Pre-Constitution legal proceedings continue seamlessly |
⚖️ Major Case Laws on Article 300:
🔹 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
AIR 1962 SC 933
Facts: A government jeep driven by a negligent government employee caused death.
Held: The State was liable in tort (civil wrong). The Court rejected the colonial rule of sovereign immunity.
Significance: Laid down that the State can be held liable for torts committed by its servants in discharge of non-sovereign functions.
🔹 Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 1965 SC 1039
Facts: Plaintiff’s gold was seized by police and later misappropriated.
Held: State was not liable since the function was a sovereign function.
Significance: Introduced the "sovereign–non-sovereign" distinction, limiting the liability of the State.
🔹 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
AIR 1993 SC 1960
Facts: A man died in police custody. His mother filed for compensation.
Held: State liable under Article 21 (Right to Life); compensation awarded for violation of fundamental rights, separate from tort law.
Significance: Expanded State liability beyond Article 300 by invoking constitutional torts.
🔹 Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1994) 6 SCC 205
Held: Reiterated that when the government acts like a private individual, it should be liable in the same manner. The sovereign immunity doctrine is not absolute.
🔹 Common Cause v. Union of India
(1999) 6 SCC 667
Held: Government cannot escape liability when acting in a commercial or non-sovereign function, such as awarding or terminating a contract.
🧾 Examples of When State May Be Sued:
| Scenario | Can Govt. Be Sued? |
|---|---|
| Government vehicle hits a pedestrian | ✅ Yes |
| Police custody death | ✅ Yes (violation of Article 21) |
| Soldier kills someone during war | ❌ No (sovereign function) |
| Breach of government contract | ✅ Yes (under Article 299 read with 300) |
🔍 Related Articles:
Article 299: Formal requirements for contracts made by the government.
Article 131: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in suits between States and Union.
✅ Conclusion:
Article 300 establishes the legal personality of the Government and provides for State accountability in courts. However, its application is nuanced:
Liability is generally accepted in commercial, administrative, and welfare activities,
But restricted in sovereign or law-and-order functions (though this is evolving).
RELATED Blog
0 comments