Tortious Liability of the State and Article 300 of the Constitution
Tortious Liability of the State and Article 300 of the Constitution
1. Meaning of Tortious Liability of the State
Tortious liability means liability arising out of a wrongful act (a tort) that causes harm or injury to another person, for which the law provides a remedy, usually compensation.
When the State or its agencies commit a wrongful act causing injury to an individual, the question arises: Can the State be held liable in tort?
Basic Concept:
Traditionally, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State was immune from being sued in tort. However, modern administrative law recognizes that the State can be held liable for its tortious acts committed through its agents or instrumentalities, especially when those acts cause wrongful harm to individuals.
2. Article 300 of the Constitution of India – Overview
Text of Article 300:
“The Government of India or the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India or the State, as the case may be, and may be represented by such officers as may be appointed in this behalf by the President or the Governor.”
Key Points about Article 300:
Article 300 authorizes the State (Union or State Government) to sue or be sued in its name.
It implies that the State does not enjoy absolute immunity; it can be sued in civil matters including tort.
However, State immunity still exists to some extent and is limited by law.
The article acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent provided by the Constitution and statutes.
3. Tortious Liability of the State: Legal Position
The State can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its servants or agencies.
Liability arises when:
There is a tortious act by a public servant within the scope of their employment.
The act causes loss or injury to an individual.
The claimant can prove causation and damage.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity has been significantly limited. The State is liable like any private person unless a statute explicitly grants immunity.
4. Significance of Tortious Liability of the State
Protection of citizens' rights against wrongful acts of State.
Accountability of government officials and public authorities.
Encourages better governance and care in public administration.
Provides remedies to victims for damages caused by administrative negligence or malfeasance.
5. Important Case Laws on Tortious Liability of the State and Article 300
Case 1: Rama Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958)
The Supreme Court held that the State can be sued in tort.
It clarified that sovereign immunity does not mean absolute immunity from tort claims.
The State can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its servants.
Case 2: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)
The Court held that the State is liable for the negligence of its servants.
The government’s liability in tort is similar to that of a private person.
However, the liability arises only if the act was committed in the course of employment and was tortious.
Case 3: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
The Supreme Court held that the State and public authorities have strict liability for hazardous activities.
It expanded tortious liability in environmental cases.
The Court recognized public interest and the need for accountability in State actions.
Case 4: K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011)
The Court held that compensation can be awarded against the State for illegal or unauthorized acts.
Emphasized that the State must pay compensation for tortious acts.
Reinforced the concept that the State is not above the law and can be held liable like a private entity.
Case 5: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2011)
The Supreme Court held that the State is liable for medical negligence by government hospitals.
Affirmed that tortious liability extends to services provided by the State.
Highlighted that the State must ensure reasonable care in public services.
6. Summary of Legal Position from Cases
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Rama Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar | State can be sued in tort; no absolute immunity |
| State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati | State liable for negligence of its servants |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | Strict liability in hazardous activities by State |
| K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka | State liable for illegal or unauthorized acts |
| Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | State liable for negligence in public health services |
7. Conclusion
Article 300 empowers the State to sue and be sued, implying limited waiver of sovereign immunity.
The State’s tortious liability ensures that citizens can seek remedies for wrongful acts by public authorities.
Modern jurisprudence balances the need for government efficiency with the rights of individuals.
The State is liable like a private person except where immunity is explicitly provided.
The discussed cases have been landmark in shaping the contours of State liability in tort.
RELATED Blog
0 comments