Q1. What is the liability of the state for wrongs committed by its servants?

Briefly explain with the help of decided

cases.
Ans. The position of state liability as stated in Article 300 of the Constitution of India is as under:-
1. The Government of India may sue and be sued by the name of Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or
be sue or be sued by the name of the State. Article 300, thus provides that the Union of India and the States are juristic
persons for the purpose of suit or proceedings. Although the Union of India and State Government can sue and be sued but
the circumstances under which that can be done have not been mentioned.

Maintenance of law and order is a sovereign function and the State is not liable for the excess committed by police
personnel while discharging their duties. Thus, if the plaintiff is injured while police personnel are dispersing unlawful
crowd (State of Orissa v. padmalochan) or the plaintiff’s loudspeaker set is damaged when the police makes a lathi
charge to quell a riot (State of M.P. v. Dhironji Lal), the State cannot be made liable for the same.

Maintenance of defence forces is a sovereign function. The State is not liable for such acts of army personnel which are
done in the performance of duties which are in exercise of sovereign powers like construction of a military road, or
distribution of meals to army personnel on duty, or checking army personnel on duty. However, if the function is one which
could be performed even by a private individual, for example, carrying military jawans from Railway Station to the Unit
headquarters, or carrying air force officers from one place to another in Delhi for playing hockey and basket ball, or
bringing back military officers from the place of exercise to the college of combat, the function is a non-sovereign one and
the State is liable for torts committed in the process.

In Kasturilal v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court again considered the question decided that if an act of the Government
servant was done in exercise of sovereign power, the State should be exempt from liability.
Famine relief work or taking children to Primary Health Centre are non-sovereign functions and, therefore, the State has
been held liable of tort committed by a Govt. servant while performing these functions. In India torts committed by the
servants of the State in discharge of obligations imposed by Law is a good defence in number of cases. In Ram Ghulam v.
Govt. of U.P., the police authorities recovered some stolen property and deposited the same in the Malkhana. The property
was again stolen from the Malkhana. The Govt. of U.P. was held not liable for the same to the owner of the property as the
Govt. servants were performing obligations imposed by law.

The Courts have bypassed Kasturilal and have awarded compensation under the circumstances when the State would have
been exempt from liability if Kasturilal had been followed. If the stolen property recovered by the police was not kept
carefully and it got stolen again, the State was held liable for the same. (Smt. Basava v. State of Mysore).

In PUDR v. State of Bihar, there was a police firing without any warning and justification on a group of poor peasants and
landless persons, who had collected for a peaceful meeting. At least 21 persons had died and many more were injured. The
Supreme Court held that the State was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for every case of death, and Rs. 5,000 for
every injured person.