Satyawati Devi v. Union of India
In Satyawati Devi v. Union of India, an Air Force vehicle transporting hockey and basketball players caused a fatal accident due to the driver’s negligence.
The Government claimed sovereign immunity, arguing that sports promote military fitness.
However, the Delhi High Court held that transporting sports teams is a non-sovereign function that could also be performed by private persons.
Therefore, the State was held vicariously liable to pay compensation for the driver’s negligence.
Union of India v. Savita Sharma
In Union of India v. Savita Sharma, a military truck transporting jawans from a railway station to Unit Headquarters met with an accident, injuring the respondent.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that transporting personnel is a non-sovereign function, as it could also be performed by a private transport service.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable to pay compensation.
Nandram Heeralal v. Union of India
In Nandram Heeralal v. Union of India, the Court held that transporting officers from an exercise ground to the College of Combat, Mhow is a non-sovereign function, making the State vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.
Similarly, using a military truck to provide driving instruction to new M.T. recruits was held to be a non-sovereign activity.
Since both are routine operational tasks rather than exclusive defense functions, the State cannot claim sovereign immunity and remains liable for negligence.
Union of India v. Smt. Jasso
In Union of India v. Smt. Jasso, a military truck carrying coal to the Army General Headquarters, Simla caused an accident due to the driver’s negligence.
The Court held that transporting coal for heating is a non-sovereign function, as it is a routine activity that could also be performed by a private transporter.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.
Union of India v. Sugrabai
In Union of India v. Sugrabai, a military driver transporting machinery and equipment to a military training school caused an accident due to his negligence.
The Bombay High Court held that transporting such equipment is a non-sovereign function, as it could also be performed by a private transporter.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.
Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad Mishra
In Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad Mishra, a military farm delivery van transporting milk caused an accident due to the driver’s negligence.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that running a military dairy farm and delivering milk is a non-sovereign commercial function that could also be carried on by private entities.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.
Pushpa v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
In Pushpa v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, a government vehicle transporting crushed barley for the defense department was involved in an accident.
The Court held that transporting crushed barley is a non-sovereign function, as it is an ordinary transport activity that could also be performed by a private contractor.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable to pay compensation.
Roop Lal v. Union of India
In Roop Lal v. Union of India, military jawans wrongfully took the plaintiff’s firewood for use as camp fuel.
The plaintiff sued the Union of India for the tort of conversion, and the Court held the State vicariously liable.
It ruled that collecting firewood for camp use is a non-sovereign function, not an exclusive sovereign power.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Union of India v. Abdul Rehman
In Union of India v. Abdul Rehman, a B.S.F. water tanker caused an accident due to the driver’s negligence.
The Court held that operating a water tanker is a non-sovereign function, as it is a routine logistical activity that could also be performed by a private operator.
Therefore, the State could not claim sovereign immunity and was held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.
Torts committed by the servants of the State in discharge of obligation imposed by Law and in exercise of sovereign functions
England
Under Section 2(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (England), the State cannot avoid liability by claiming that a tort was committed while its servant was performing statutory or common law duties.
The provision treats such duties as if they were assigned through executive instructions.
Consequently, this makes the Crown vicariously liable for the negligence or wrongful acts of its servants committed in the course of their employment.
India
In India, a tort committed by a government servant while performing statutory duties has traditionally been accepted as a defence for the State.
The rationale is that the officer acts under the authority of the law rather than the Government, weakening the ordinary master-servant relationship.
Consequently, the State may claim immunity from vicarious liability for torts committed in the discharge of such statutory duties.
Ram Ghulam v. Govt. of U.P.
In Ram Ghulam v. Govt. of U.P., police recovered the plaintiff’s stolen property and deposited it in the government Malkhana, from where it was stolen again.
The Court held that the State was not liable, as the police were performing statutory law enforcement duties under criminal procedure.
Therefore, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not vicariously liable for the loss of the property.
Mohammad Murad v. Govt. of U.P.
In Mohammad Murad v. Govt. of U.P., jewellery entrusted to a court Nazir was stolen after he failed to deposit it in the government treasury as required by the General Rules (Civil), 1926.
The plaintiff sued the Government, but the Court held that the State was not liable, as the Nazir was performing statutory duties imposed by law rather than acting under executive instructions.
Therefore, the State was protected from vicarious liability for the loss.
Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.
In Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., police arrested a jeweler under the Code of Criminal Procedure, seized his gold and silver, and kept them in the police Malkhana, where 103 tolas of gold was misappropriated by a Head Constable who fled to Pakistan.
The Supreme Court held that the State was not liable, ruling that arrest, search, and seizure are sovereign statutory functions.
Therefore, despite the negligence of the police, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not vicariously liable for the loss of the gold.
State of M.P. v. Chironjilal
In State of M.P. v. Chironjilal, the plaintiff sought compensation for damage to a loudspeaker during a police lathi charge on a student procession.
The Court held that the State was not liable, ruling that regulating public processions and maintaining public order are core sovereign functions.
Therefore, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not vicariously liable for the damage.
Failure of the police to perform its duties
Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal
In Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal, a 16-year-old spectator was seriously injured in a stampede at Eden Gardens due to inadequate crowd control and the failure of the State and police to provide basic safety measures.
The Court rejected the State’s plea of sovereign immunity, holding that the incident resulted from administrative negligence, not the exercise of sovereign power.
Consequently, the State Government and the Cricket Association of Bengal were held jointly liable for negligence.
Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal
In Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal, a 16-year-old spectator was seriously injured in a stampede at Eden Gardens, Calcutta, due to the failure of the State and police to provide adequate crowd control, medical aid, and drinking water.
The Court rejected the State’s plea of sovereign immunity, holding that the incident resulted from administrative negligence, not the exercise of sovereign power.
Consequently, the State Government and the Cricket Association of Bengal were held jointly liable for negligence.
State of U.P. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
In State of U.P. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Hindustan Lever Ltd. deposited ₹50,000 as excise duty in the Government sub-treasury at Ghaziabad, but the accountant and treasurer embezzled the amount.
Although the officials acted under statutory rules, the Allahabad High Court, relying on Kasturi Lal, held that the State was liable, ruling that the exercise of statutory powers does not by itself confer sovereign immunity unless the act is a true sovereign function.
Since receiving deposits and maintaining treasury accounts are ordinary functions that could also be performed by private entities, the State was held vicariously liable.
State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram
In State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram, a court clerk (Ahalmad) negligently prepared arrest warrants for five persons, including two who had already been acquitted, and the Judicial Officer signed the warrants, resulting in their wrongful arrest.
Applying Kasturi Lal, the Allahabad High Court held that the State was not liable because preparing and executing arrest warrants were statutory duties connected with sovereign power.
However, the Court clarified that sovereign immunity did not extend to the individual officer.
Since signing the warrants was a ministerial act, the officer could not claim protection under the Judicial Officers’ Protection Act and was held personally liable to pay damages.
Kasturi Lal Bypassed
“Kasturi Lal Bypassed,” the text explains that although Kasturi Lal remains valid law, its practical authority has been greatly diluted by later Supreme Court decisions.
Rather than formally overruling the case, the courts have largely bypassed its strict doctrine of sovereign immunity.
As a result, the State is now increasingly held liable for property damage and personal injuries in situations where it would previously have enjoyed immunity.
Loss to property
When private property comes into the possession of State officials, a relationship of deemed bailment arises, making the State the bailee of the property.
Consequently, the State has a legal duty to return the property safely or compensate the owner if it is lost, damaged, or stolen while in official custody.
State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed
In State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed, customs authorities seized two trucks, a station wagon, and goods for alleged non-payment of import duties and later obtained a disposal order by falsely representing them as unclaimed property.
When the confiscation order was set aside, the Supreme Court held that the State became a bailee upon taking possession of the property.
Therefore, the Government had a duty to return the property or pay compensation for failing to restore the seized vehicles.
Smt. Basava v. State of Mysore
In Smt. Basava v. State of Mysore, stolen ornaments and cash recovered by the police were kept in official custody under a Magistrate’s order but later went missing.
The Supreme Court held the State liable, as it failed to prove that the loss occurred despite exercising due care and caution or was beyond its control.
The Court ruled that, as the State acted as a bailee of the recovered property, it had a duty to keep it safe and was ordered to pay compensation.