Sovereign functions and state liability
⚖️ Sovereign Functions and State Liability
1. Meaning of Sovereign Functions:
Sovereign functions are those functions that are performed by the State as a sovereign authority, such as:
Defence
Maintenance of law and order
Administration of justice
Foreign affairs
Legislative functions
These functions are unique to the State and cannot be performed by private individuals or bodies. They are often linked with governmental authority and coercive powers.
2. State Liability in Tort:
When government officials, agents, or servants cause harm to individuals through negligence or wrongful acts, the question arises:
Can the State be held liable?
Historically, under the doctrine "King can do no wrong", the State enjoyed absolute immunity. However, modern administrative law — especially in India — has limited this immunity, particularly in cases involving non-sovereign functions.
3. Distinction Between Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions:
| Aspect | Sovereign Functions | Non-Sovereign Functions |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Essential government functions | Commercial or welfare activities |
| Examples | Defence, policing, judiciary | Transport, electricity, hospitals, industries |
| State Liability | Not liable (in most cases) | Liable |
📚 Key Case Laws on Sovereign Functions and State Liability
🔹 1. P & O Steam Navigation Co. v Secretary of State for India (1861) – Bombay High Court
Facts:
Employees of the East India Company, while engaged in loading government stores, negligently injured the plaintiff's horse carriage.
Held:
The court distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Since loading/unloading was a commercial (non-sovereign) activity, the East India Company (and the government) was held liable.
Principle:
The State is liable for non-sovereign functions.
It is not liable for sovereign functions like defence, war, etc.
Significance:
This case laid the foundation of State liability in India, introducing the sovereign vs. non-sovereign distinction.
🔹 2. State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933
Facts:
A government jeep, driven negligently by a government driver (working for the Collector), killed a pedestrian. The car was being taken for repair.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the State liable. It ruled that the jeep was being used for non-sovereign purposes and the act was not connected with sovereign functions.
Principle:
State is liable for the tortious acts of its employees in non-sovereign functions.
The immunity of the State is not absolute.
🔹 3. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1039
Facts:
Gold belonging to the plaintiff was seized by the police during arrest and later misappropriated by a police officer who fled the country.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the State not liable, since the act of seizure and police custody was part of a sovereign function (law enforcement).
Principle:
When public servants act in the exercise of sovereign powers, the State is not liable, even if the act is wrongful.
Reinforced the immunity for sovereign functions.
Criticism:
This judgment has been heavily criticized for being too lenient towards the State and denying compensation to victims of government wrongdoing.
🔹 4. Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
The petitioner’s son died due to custodial violence by police. The State claimed immunity under sovereign functions.
Held:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation, stating that sovereign immunity does not apply to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Principle:
In cases of constitutional torts or fundamental rights violations, sovereign immunity is not a defence.
State has a duty to compensate for State-sponsored violence or negligence.
🔹 5. Common Cause v Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667
Facts:
Petition challenged the arbitrary allotment of petrol pumps by ministers for political favors.
Held:
The Court held that the ministers acted in bad faith and beyond their authority. The action was not protected under sovereign functions.
Principle:
Abuse of power, even by public authorities, is not protected by sovereign immunity.
The State is accountable when discretion is exercised arbitrarily or illegally.
✅ Modern Position in India:
The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions still exists, but:
Courts are moving towards limiting sovereign immunity, especially in cases of:
Police atrocities
Medical negligence in government hospitals
Custodial deaths
Misuse of public power
🧾 Conclusion:
Sovereign immunity still applies to core state functions, but it is not absolute.
The State can be held liable for non-sovereign acts and constitutional violations.
Indian judiciary has played a major role in evolving this doctrine, moving towards greater accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments