Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
🔷 Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity – Detailed Explanation
🔹 What Is Sovereign Immunity?
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity means that the State (or sovereign authority) cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. It is rooted in the old legal maxim:
“The King can do no wrong.”
This principle was accepted in English common law and has influenced legal systems in countries like India, the United States, and others.
🔹 Types of Sovereign Immunity
Absolute Sovereign Immunity: The State is immune from all legal actions.
Restrictive Sovereign Immunity: The State is immune only for acts done in its sovereign capacity (e.g., defense, diplomacy), but not for commercial or private acts (non-sovereign functions).
🔹 Application in Administrative Law
In administrative law, sovereign immunity often comes into question when:
A citizen sues the government for tortious acts.
There's a breach of contract by a public authority.
Fundamental rights are violated by State action.
The courts have evolved limitations on sovereign immunity to balance State authority with individual rights.
🔷 Key Case Laws on Sovereign Immunity
✅ 1. P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1861) – India (Privy Council)
Facts: The plaintiff’s horse-drawn carriage was damaged by a government employee. A suit for damages was filed against the Secretary of State.
Held: The court distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Since the act was non-sovereign (commercial activity), the State was held liable.
Importance: First Indian case to limit sovereign immunity. Laid the foundation for the doctrine of “non-sovereign functions = no immunity.”
✅ 2. Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) – India
Facts: Plaintiff’s gold was seized by police and later stolen due to police negligence. He sued the State for compensation.
Held: The act was part of a sovereign function (policing), so the State was not liable.
Importance: Reaffirmed sovereign immunity for sovereign functions in Indian law, though widely criticized for injustice.
✅ 3. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) – India
Facts: A government vehicle, driven negligently by a government employee, killed a pedestrian. A suit for compensation was filed.
Held: The State was held liable as maintaining a vehicle for official use was not a sovereign function.
Importance: A progressive judgment narrowing the scope of sovereign immunity.
✅ 4. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) – India
Facts: The State negligently stored and mishandled the appellant’s seized goods, leading to losses.
Held: The State was liable as this was not a sovereign function. When the government engages in commercial or private activities, it should be treated like a private party.
Importance: Marked a shift from Kasturi Lal, limiting sovereign immunity further.
✅ 5. Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) – India
Facts: A PIL was filed alleging arbitrary allotment of petrol pumps by ministers.
Held: Abuse of public office cannot be protected by sovereign immunity. Accountability of public authorities is essential.
Importance: Showed that immunity does not extend to abuse of power, even by high-ranking officials.
✅ 6. Chandulal v. Government of India (1951) – India
Facts: Plaintiff sued the government for wrongful termination.
Held: Government not liable as the action was within its sovereign powers.
Importance: Reinforced the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign acts.
🔷 Summary Table
| Case | Held | Sovereign Immunity? | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| P & O Navigation (1861) | Liable | ❌ (Non-sovereign) | Introduced distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign |
| Vidyawati (1962) | Liable | ❌ (Non-sovereign) | Humanized administrative law |
| Kasturi Lal (1965) | Not liable | ✅ (Sovereign) | Criticized; reaffirmed immunity |
| Nagendra Rao (1994) | Liable | ❌ (Non-sovereign) | Modern interpretation; commercial acts not immune |
| Common Cause (1999) | Liable | ❌ | Immunity doesn't protect abuse of power |
| Chandulal (1951) | Not liable | ✅ | Reaffirmed immunity for core state functions |
🔷 Evolving Trend
Early law: Broad sovereign immunity.
Modern trend: Move toward restrictive immunity—State is liable for non-sovereign or commercial acts.
Administrative law's role: Ensures government accountability while recognizing its special responsibilities.
🔷 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity has evolved from absolute protection of the State to a more nuanced approach where the government can be held liable for non-sovereign acts. Courts increasingly favor citizen’s rights and public accountability over blanket immunity, especially in the realm of administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments