INTRODUCTION

➢In earlier times the popular maxim’’ RES NON POTEST

PECCARE “ the king can do no wrong was considered

➢But later in 1947 England brought CROWN PROCEEDINGS

ACT 1947 , the act mentioned that that king can be sued and is
not exempted from all the liabilities

OTHER IMPORTANT MAXIM’S ARE:

➢RESPONDENT SUPERIOR let the principle be liable
➢QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE he who does an act
through another does it himself
2
INDIAN GOVERNMENT’S TORT AND IT’S
HISTORY
➢The tort committed by India is discussed for the first time in the
year
1858 – secretary of state council was liable for the tort committed by
government in this year
➢In the year 1935 the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935 in
Section 176(i) – federation of India and provinces will be liable for
the act
➢In the year 1950 which is still in effect
In the Indian constitution Article 300 – Union of India and the state
shall be liable for the act of government servant
3
TYPES OF FUNCTIONS OF STATE
THERE ARE TWO MAIN FUNCTIONS THAT IS PERFORMED BY
GOVERNMENT

SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS ( ONLY PERFORMED BY GOVERNMENT OR

STATES)

➢ Defence Of The Country

➢ Raising And Maintaining Armed Forces
➢ Making Peace Or War
➢ Foreign Affairs
➢ Acquiring And Retaining Territory
 NON SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS ( THERE ARE FEW FUNCTIONS
PERFORMED BY GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS)

➢Road transport

➢Construction

➢Trade Activities

NOTE: If the government commits tort under soverign function

will not be liable for tort , but if its non soverign then only
government is liable

5
CASE LAWS
1. PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION V SECRETARY OF
STATE OF INDIA
✓ FACT OF THE CASE
In the course of their employment, a servant of the plaintiff Company was
travelling from Garden Beach in Calcutta in an exceeding carriage pulled by a
pair of horses belonging to the plaintiff and driven by the coachman. Certain
government employees were riveting a piece of iron funnel casing. They were
startled by the carriage’s proximity and abruptly dropped the iron and ran. The
iron landed with a respectable clap, which roused the aggrieved party’s
ponies, who rushed forward savagely and fell on the iron, injuring at least one
pony. Plaintiff filed a case against the secretary of the state

✓ JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff's claim against the Secretary of State was allowed to succeed
It was held that the secretary was liable for the negligence of his servant
6
 2. STATE OF RAJASTHAN V VIDYAWATI
✓ THE FACT OF THE CASE
Lokumal was a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan, as a
motor driver on probation. He was employed as the driver of a
Government jeep car. Lokumal while driving the car back along a
public road knocked down Jagdishlal causing him multiple
injuries, including fractures of the skull and backbone, resulting in
his death three days later. The plaintiffs who are Jagdishlal’s widow
Vidyawati and sued the said Lokumal and the State of Rajasthan for
damages tort

✓ JUDGEMENT
The Court said that the employment of driver of a jeep car for the
use of a civil servant was an activity which was not connected in any
manner with the sovereign power of the State at all. In this case,
court rejected the plea of immunity of the State and held that the
State was liable for the tortious act of the driver like any other
7
employer.
3.KASTURI LAL V STATE OF UP
✓ FACTS OF THE CASE
Ralia Ram was one of the partners of a firm that deals in gold and sliver
and other goods He was taken into custody by constables on suspicion of
owning the stolen property. He was detained into lock-up and his
belongings, gold and silver were seized. The next day he was released on
bail and after sometimes the seized silver has been returned to him.
Respondent alleged that the head constable, Mohammad Amir, then in
charge misappropriated the gold and flew away to Pakistan and the case
against him was also filed but nothing effective could be done in the said
case.

✓ JUDGMENT OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court held that it was negligence on the part of
respondent’s employee, but the employee was discharging his
sovereign powers, hence the claim of the appellant fails and the
parties had to bear the cost of damage.
8
THANK YOU