Acts of Police Officials -

In Pagadala Narasimham v. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore Municipality, the court held that removing a wrongly parked bus obstructing traffic was a sovereign function, as it involved enforcing traffic regulations and maintaining public order.
Therefore, the actions of the police and municipal authorities were legally justified, and no liability arose.

In State of Orissa v. Padmalochan, the court held that protecting public property and dispersing a violent mob are sovereign functions essential to maintaining public order.
It ruled that even if police officers exceeded their authority, the operation remained sovereign in nature.
Consequently, the State was not vicariously liable under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In State of Assam v. Md. Nizamuddin Ahmed, police seized agricultural seeds from an unlicensed shop, but the seeds were damaged due to negligent storage in police custody.
The Court held that confiscation of goods is a sovereign law enforcement function.
Therefore, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not liable for the loss.

In State of M.P. v. Chironji Lal, a loudspeaker was damaged during a police lathi charge to disperse an unruly student procession.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that maintaining law and order is a sovereign function.
Therefore, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not vicariously liable for the damage.

In State of Punjab v. Lal Chand Sabharwal, police officers unlawfully transported detained protesters instead of producing them before a Magistrate, and the driver’s negligence caused a bus accident.
The court held that transporting detenus in this manner was a non-sovereign function, rejected the defense of sovereign immunity, and held the State vicariously liable.
The case reaffirmed that the State is immune only for torts committed while performing core sovereign functions, not for non-sovereign or unlawful acts.

Police firing-Compensation.

When a passenger dies because police officers recklessly fire at a bus, such unjustified use of force is not protected as a lawful exercise of official power.
Therefore, the State cannot claim sovereign immunity.
Consequently, the State is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the deceased passenger’s legal representatives and dependents.

Although maintaining the armed forces is a sovereign function, the State does not enjoy absolute immunity for every tort committed by army personnel.
Courts determine liability by examining whether the act involved an exclusive sovereign function or a non-sovereign activity that a private person could also perform.
If the negligence occurs during a non-sovereign task, the State remains vicariously liable.

The principle of vicarious liability has been applied in public law to ensure State accountability for illegal acts of armed forces personnel.
Although the armed forces perform protected sovereign duties, the State cannot claim blanket sovereign immunity for unauthorized or illegal acts.
Consequently, constitutional courts may direct the State to pay compensation to victims.

In Smt. Meinam Ongbi Bina Devi v. State of Manipur, an employee of the Assam Rifles committed rape using his government-issued service weapon while on unauthorized leave.
The Central Government argued that it was not liable because the personnel was off duty.
However, the Manipur High Court rejected this defense, holding that the statutory deeming provision treating such personnel as being in active service applied for determining public law liability.
The Court held the Central Government vicariously liable, observing that the accused abused the power, status, and weapon provided by the State to commit the crime.
Therefore, the government could not escape its obligation to compensate the victim merely because the officer was on unauthorized leave.

In Secretary of State v. Cockraft, government servants negligently piled gravel on a military road, causing a horse carriage accident that injured the plaintiff.
The court held that maintaining a road used for defense is an essential sovereign function connected with national defense.
Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity protected the State from vicarious liability, and the government was not liable for the negligence of its servants committed while performing this sovereign function.

In Union of India v. Harbans Singh, a military driver delivering meals from the Delhi Cantonment to soldiers on active duty caused a fatal accident.
The Court held that transporting essential supplies to deployed military personnel is a sovereign function connected with national defense.
Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied, and the State was not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.

In Baxi Amrik Singh v. Union of India, the plaintiff was injured due to the rash and negligent driving of an army sepoy operating a military truck.
The Union of India claimed sovereign immunity, arguing that the driver was on duty inspecting army personnel.
The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that inspecting on-duty troops is a core sovereign function closely connected with military discipline and can only be performed by authorized armed forces personnel.
Therefore, the State was protected by sovereign immunity and was not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.