Liability of State-Constitutional Tort -

In Ramjan v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court held the State liable to provide free medical treatment and monetary compensation to victims of an acid attack.
The Court held that permanent disfigurement and mental trauma amounted to a violation of the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Emphasizing the doctrine of constitutional tort, the Court ruled that the State cannot escape its duty to maintain law and order or compel victims to rely solely on private remedies.
The Court affirmed that the State is constitutionally bound to provide immediate relief through a public law remedy

Fundamental Right under Article 21 available to Foreign National also

In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, a Bangladeshi woman was gang-raped by railway employees at Yatri Niwas, Howrah Railway Station.
The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 is available to every person, including foreign nationals, and is not confined to Indian citizens.
Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the Court held the Central Government vicariously liable and directed it to pay compensation.
The Court affirmed that the State is responsible for protecting the life and dignity of all persons within India.

The law on State liability in India remains uncertain, as courts continue to balance the rule in Kasturi Lal with modern decisions granting compensation under Article 32 without affecting the right to file a civil suit.
Even in Kasturi Lal, Chief Justice Gajendragadkar questioned the continued application of the English doctrine of sovereign immunity and emphasized the need for legislative reform.
Although the Law Commission proposed The Government (Liability in Tort) Bill, 1967, Parliament never enacted it.
Consequently, India still lacks a comprehensive statutory law governing the tortious liability of the State.

In N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court re-examined the vicarious liability of the State, considering Vidyawati, Kasturi Lal, the UK Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, and the US Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946.
The Court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has little relevance in a modern Welfare State, criticized the continued absence of legislation on State liability, and emphasized that denying compensation to victims is contrary to social justice.
Until Parliament enacts a comprehensive law, courts should adopt a progressive approach and hold the State liable for the negligence of its servants.