Doctrine of sovereign immunity
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
Meaning and Principle
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity means "the king can do no wrong." Historically, it implies that the State or sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent.
It reflects the principle of absolute immunity from civil suits and legal proceedings.
It is rooted in public law and the concept of the State’s supreme authority.
This immunity extends to governmental acts but traditionally not to private or commercial acts.
The doctrine balances State’s dignity and interests with individual rights to remedies.
Types of Sovereign Immunity
Absolute Sovereign Immunity: The State is immune from all lawsuits.
Restrictive Sovereign Immunity: The State is immune only for sovereign (public) acts but can be sued for commercial/private acts (the modern approach).
Modern Perspective and Abrogation
Many countries have restricted the doctrine through statutory laws and judicial decisions, allowing suits against the State in certain cases.
The State often consents to be sued under “waivers of immunity” or government contracts.
Courts have clarified the limits of immunity, especially regarding governmental liability for wrongful acts.
Importance in Administrative Law
The doctrine impacts government liability, administrative actions, and remedies available to individuals.
It influences the scope of judicial review of administrative acts.
Helps define when the government can be held accountable.
Key Case Laws on Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
1. Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611
Facts: The question was whether the government could be challenged for funding a controversial project abroad.
Held: Courts allowed judicial review, rejecting absolute sovereign immunity where government actions affected public interest.
Significance: Confirmed the limited application of sovereign immunity in administrative decisions.
Impact: Affirmed the role of courts in scrutinizing government actions, even involving foreign policy.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374
Facts: Government withdrew certain rights of employees at GCHQ citing national security.
Held: While sovereign immunity did not bar judicial review, some acts could be excluded on justiciability grounds.
Significance: Showed limits of immunity and introduced concept of justiciability.
Impact: Distinguished between acts immune due to policy reasons and acts subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Facts: The government commission made an error of law, and the question was if its decisions were immune from judicial review.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that errors of law made by public bodies are reviewable.
Significance: Effectively rejected the idea of ouster of judicial review based on sovereign immunity.
Impact: Strengthened judicial oversight despite statutory barriers.
4. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
Facts: Challenged the removal of Chagos Islanders from their homeland by the government.
Held: The House of Lords allowed the claimants to proceed, rejecting immunity for the government’s executive acts causing harm.
Significance: Restricted the scope of sovereign immunity where human rights and justice are concerned.
Impact: Demonstrated growing judicial willingness to hold government accountable.
5. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75
Facts: The British government destroyed oil installations during WWII to prevent enemy use.
Held: Government was liable to pay compensation despite immunity claims.
Significance: Allowed claims against the government for compensable acts, rejecting blanket immunity.
Impact: Influenced statutory responses like the War Damage Act to clarify immunity scope.
6. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513
Facts: Government refused to implement compensation scheme promised by statute.
Held: The court ruled government could be held accountable despite claims of immunity.
Significance: Reinforced judicial control over government discretion.
Impact: Demonstrated that sovereignty does not protect arbitrary government action.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity |
|---|---|---|
| World Development Movement (1995) | Limited immunity in public interest cases | Courts can review government actions affecting public |
| GCHQ Case (1985) | Sovereign immunity limited by justiciability | Certain government acts excluded from review, but not all |
| Anisminic (1969) | Judicial review of errors of law | Rejected ouster clauses protecting immunity |
| Bancoult (2008) | Government accountable in human rights matters | Sovereign immunity curtailed for rights violations |
| Burmah Oil (1965) | Liability for compensable acts | Immunity not absolute in cases of damage and compensation |
| Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Judicial control over government discretion | Sovereign immunity doesn’t shield arbitrary refusal to act |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity has evolved from absolute immunity to a restrictive or qualified immunity model. Modern courts balance the State’s interests with the rights of individuals, allowing judicial scrutiny of governmental actions especially when fundamental rights, legality, and justice are at stake.
While immunity protects core sovereign functions, it is no longer a blanket shield against judicial review or claims for redress. This evolution reflects a more accountable, transparent, and democratic administrative state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments