Rex Non Potest Peccare
1. Meaning of Rex Non Potest Peccare
Latin maxim: Rex non potest peccare
Literal translation: “The King can do no wrong.”
Legal meaning: The sovereign or state cannot be held liable for acts done in the exercise of its official authority. This principle forms the basis of sovereign immunity.
Key Points:
Originally applied to the monarch in common law, asserting the king could not commit a tort.
Modernly, it is applied to the state or government to protect it from suits unless it consents.
The doctrine is not absolute; governments may waive immunity or be bound by statutes like the Governmental Liability Acts.
2. Scope of the Principle
Acts done in official capacity – The government cannot be sued for actions done lawfully under sovereign powers.
Acts outside official duty – The state may be liable if the act is ultra vires (beyond authority) or negligent.
Consent of the State – Immunity can be waived by statute or contract.
3. Illustrative Case Law
A. Historical Case: Sir Thomas Smith’s Commentaries
Early common law recognized the king’s immunity from suit. Courts would not hold the sovereign liable for acts done in public governance.
B. Case: The King v. Arundel (1825)
Principle applied: The monarch cannot commit a wrong in the governance of the realm.
Observation: Individuals could not sue the king for acts done in official capacity; instead, remedies were sought from ministers or courts on behalf of the Crown.
C. Indian Context
Case: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)
Facts: The government was sued for negligence of a government servant (teacher) leading to harm.
Held: The state is liable for acts of its servants performed in the course of employment (vicarious liability).
Significance: While the maxim exists, Indian law recognizes that the state can be liable for torts of its agents under certain conditions (e.g., Section 4 of the Government Proceedings Act).
Case: Union of India v. Madan Mohan (1976)
Facts: A government employee’s negligence caused property damage.
Held: Sovereign immunity does not extend to acts done in a contractual capacity or negligently.
Principle: Rex non potest peccare applies only to acts in the exercise of sovereign functions, not private or commercial acts.
4. Exceptions to the Maxim
Ultra Vires Acts: If the government acts beyond its legal authority, it can be liable.
Negligence of Servants: Acts of government employees causing tortious harm may attract liability.
Statutory Liability: Laws like Government Proceedings Act, 1897 (India), or Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (UK) allow claims against the government.
Commercial Activities: When the state acts as a trader or contractor, immunity does not apply.
5. Modern Significance
The doctrine of sovereign immunity has evolved from absolute to qualified immunity in most countries.
Governments can no longer claim blanket immunity for all acts; liability is now limited to acts of public authority, not commercial or negligent acts.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | “The King can do no wrong” | The King v. Arundel (1825) |
| Scope | Acts in official/sovereign capacity | State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) |
| Liability of State Agents | State can be liable for torts of its servants | Union of India v. Madan Mohan (1976) |
| Exceptions | Ultra vires acts, negligence, commercial acts | Government Proceedings Act, 1897 (India) |
| Modern Principle | Sovereign immunity is qualified, not absolute | - |
✅ Key Takeaways
The maxim originally protected the monarch from suits in tort.
Today, sovereign immunity is limited, especially in India, UK, and most common law countries.
Governments are liable for negligence, ultra vires acts, and commercial transactions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments