“A King Can Do No Wrong” A Journey Of State Liability From

Crown To Modern Times.

Submitted by:
AARYA KHOPKAR
UID no. UG2021-01
BA.LL. B (HONS.)
SEMESTER IV

Submitted to:
Prof. Dr. Rahul Sangaokar
 Table Of Content
1. Research methodology
2. Research objective
3. Introduction
4. The doctrine of state immunity from legal liability
5. Historical Development Of State Liability
6. Development of legal theories that challenged the "King can do no
wrong" doctrine.
7. Expansion Of State Liability through legislative acts.
8. What is the concept of sovereign immunity in international law? What are
some exceptions to sovereign immunity recognized in international law?
Research Methodology
The research design for this study is a combination of descriptive and exploratory research.
Descriptive research will be used to provide an overview of the historical development of the
concept of state liability, while exploratory research will be used to gain insight into the role
of the monarchy in shaping this development. The research design will also employ a cross-
sectional approach, where data will be collected at a specific point in time, to explore the
evolution of state liability over different historical periods.
Research Objective
Research Objective: The primary objective of this research paper is to explore the concept of
state liability, specifically examining how the notion that "a king can do no wrong" has
evolved over time to modern-day understandings of state responsibility. The paper aims to:
1. Analyze the historical context and origins of the concept of "a king can do no wrong"
and its influence on early legal systems.
2. Examine the challenges and changes to the concept of state liability during the
development of modern legal systems.
3. Investigate the implications of the evolution of state liability on contemporary legal
and political frameworks, such as the emergence of the principle of sovereign
immunity.
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of current approaches to state liability and the potential for
further development or reform.
The research paper will employ a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on legal, historical,
and political sources to provide a comprehensive analysis of state liability from its roots in
the monarchic system to its current manifestation in contemporary legal frameworks.
Introduction
The "king can do no wrong" doctrine is a legal principle that originated in English common
law, which states that the king or queen, as the sovereign, is immune from civil suits or
criminal prosecutions for any wrongdoing. This doctrine means that the monarch, being the
head of the state, is above the law and cannot be held accountable for any harm or injury
caused to an individual or group of people.
The doctrine originated in medieval England and was based on the idea of the divine right of
kings, which held that the monarch was appointed by God and therefore, could not be
questioned or challenged by the people. This concept was reinforced by the belief that the
king was the ultimate source of justice and law, and that he had the power to dispense justice
as he saw fit.
Over time, the "king can do no wrong" doctrine evolved to include the idea that the
monarch's immunity extended to all branches of government, including the judiciary and
executive. This meant that judges and other government officials could not be held liable for
any actions they took on behalf of the monarch.
In India, the doctrine of "king can do no wrong" was adopted during the British colonial rule,
which lasted from 1858 to 1947. During this period, the British government ruled India
through a system of laws that were based on English common law principles, including the
doctrine of "king can do no wrong."
In the context of the law of torts, the "king can do no wrong" doctrine meant that the British
government and its officials could not be held liable for any tortious acts they committed
while carrying out their official duties. This immunity extended to acts of negligence, breach
of duty, and other forms of tortious conduct.
However, this doctrine was challenged in India by several courts, including the Supreme
Court, which held that the immunity of the government and its officials was not absolute and
could be waived in certain circumstances. The courts also recognized that the government
had a duty of care towards its citizens, and could be held liable for any harm or injury caused
by its officials.
the "king can do no wrong" doctrine originated in English common law and was adopted in
India during the British colonial period. It granted immunity to the monarch and government
officials from civil suits and criminal prosecutions, including tortious conduct. However, this
doctrine has been challenged in India by the courts, which have recognized that the
government and its officials can be held liable for their actions under certain circumstances.

The doctrine of state immunity from legal liability

The doctrine of state immunity from legal liability is a legal principle that holds that a state
cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. This principle is rooted in the idea of
sovereign immunity, which holds that the state is sovereign and therefore cannot be held
liable for its actions in the same way as a private individual or entity.
The doctrine has its origins in the English common law principle of "the king can do no
wrong", which meant that the monarch was immune from legal liability. This principle was
eventually extended to cover the entire state and became the foundation for the modern
doctrine of state immunity.
The significance of the doctrine lies in its role in protecting the state from legal action, which
in turn helps to maintain the state's ability to govern and make decisions without fear of being
held liable for its actions. This is important because it allows the state to carry out its
functions without being distracted by legal proceedings, which could be time-consuming and
costly.
However, the doctrine of state immunity has been the subject of much debate and criticism.
Critics argue that it can lead to injustice by denying individuals the right to seek redress for
harm caused by the state. In response, some countries have introduced limited waivers of
state immunity in certain circumstances.
In India, the doctrine of state immunity has been recognized by the courts, but it is subject to
certain exceptions. The Indian Constitution provides for the immunity of the President,
Governors, and other public officials, but it also provides for the right of citizens to seek
redress for violations of their rights. The courts have interpreted this provision to mean that
the state can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its officials, subject to certain
conditions.
In recent years, there have been a number of cases in India where individuals have
successfully sued the state for tortious acts committed by its officials, such as negligence or
wrongful arrest. These cases demonstrate the evolving nature of the doctrine of state
immunity in India and the increasing recognition of the rights of individuals to seek redress
for harm caused by the state.
Overall, the doctrine of state immunity from legal liability remains an important principle in
modern legal systems, but it must be balanced against the rights of individuals to seek redress
for harm caused by the state.
Historical Development Of State Liability
The principle of "A King Can Do No Wrong" originated in English common law and
essentially meant that the king or queen could not be held liable for any civil wrongs
committed by them or their agents. However, over time, this principle has been eroded, and
the concept of state liability has evolved.
In India, the concept of state liability emerged after the country gained independence from
British rule in 1947. The Indian Constitution, which was adopted in 1950, laid down the
framework for state liability. Article 300 of the Constitution states that the Union of India and
the States are liable for any legal obligations arising out of their actions.
The development of state liability in India can be traced back to the case of Kasturilal Ralia
Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965). In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that
the State was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, even if they were committed in the
discharge of their official duties. The court held that the State had a duty to ensure that its
employees acted lawfully and that it was responsible for any damage caused by their
wrongful acts.1
Another landmark case in the development of state liability in India is the case of Rudul Sah
v. State of Bihar (1983). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State was liable for the
wrongful acts of its police officers, even if they were committed without any malice or
intention to cause harm. The court held that the State had a duty to protect the rights of its
citizens and that it was responsible for any harm caused to them.2
In the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000), the Supreme Court of
India held that the State was liable for the acts of its employees, even if they were committed
outside the scope of their official duties. The court held that the State had a duty to ensure
that its employees acted in a manner that did not harm the public, and that it was responsible
for any harm caused by their actions.3
The concept of state liability has continued to evolve in India, with the Supreme Court
handing down a number of landmark judgments. For example, in the case of M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (1987), the court held that the State was liable for environmental damage
1
Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1039.
2
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086.
3
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465.
caused by its actions or inaction. In the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the
court held that the State was liable for the custodial death of a person in police custody. 45
In conclusion, the concept of state liability has come a long way from the principle of "A
King Can Do No Wrong". In India, the development of state liability can be traced back to
the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. Over time, the concept has evolved, and the State
has been held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees and for damage caused by its
actions or inaction. The landmark cases discussed above have been instrumental in shaping
the law of torts in India.
Development of legal theories that challenged the "King can do no wrong" doctrine.
The doctrine of "the King can do no wrong" originated from the ancient English legal
principle that the monarch was above the law and immune from legal action. This doctrine
was based on the belief that the king was appointed by God and therefore had divine rights,
which made him above any human laws. However, over time, this doctrine was challenged by
various legal theories that expanded state liability and limited the king's immunity.
One of the earliest legal theories that challenged the "King can do no wrong" doctrine was the
principle of vicarious liability, which held that the king could be held responsible for the
actions of his servants and agents. This principle was established in the case of Joel v.
Morrison (1834), where it was held that the crown was liable for the negligence of its
servants.6
Another important legal theory that challenged the doctrine was the idea of sovereign
immunity, which held that while the king could not be held personally liable, the crown as a
legal entity could be held liable for its actions. This theory was developed in the case of
Rustomjee v. The Queen (1876), where it was held that the crown could be held liable for its
tortious acts.7
In India, the doctrine of "the King can do no wrong" was introduced by the British colonial
rulers and was incorporated into the Indian legal system. However, after India gained
independence in 1947, the doctrine was gradually replaced by the principle of state liability,
which held that the state could be held liable for its tortious acts.
The principle of state liability was first recognized by the Indian Supreme Court in the
landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), where it was held that the state was
liable for the negligence of its employees. This decision paved the way for the expansion of
state liability in India and the development of the principle of sovereign immunity. 8
In more recent times, the Indian judiciary has further expanded the principle of state liability
by recognizing the concept of absolute liability, which holds that the state can be held liable
for any harm caused by its activities, regardless of fault. This principle was established in the

4
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.
5
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.
6
Joel v. Morrison (1834) 6 Cl & Fin 1

7
Rustomjee v. The Queen (1876) LR 2 Ind App 115

8
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) 1 SCR 764
case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), where the Supreme Court held that the state
was liable for the Bhopal gas tragedy, even though the government was not directly
responsible for the incident.
The development of legal theories that challenged the "King can do no wrong" doctrine and
expanded state liability has played a crucial role in the evolution of the law of torts in India.
The principle of state liability has helped to hold the state accountable for its actions and has
ensured that victims of tortious acts are adequately compensated.
Expansion Of State Liability through legislative acts.
The "King can do no wrong" doctrine refers to the principle that the monarch is immune from legal
liability, and as a result, the government is also immune from legal liability for the actions of its
officials. This doctrine historically limited the ability of citizens to hold the state accountable for any
harm caused by its actions or inactions. However, with the passage of legislative acts, the state's
liability has been established and expanded, allowing for greater accountability for its actions.

One such legislative act in India that established and expanded state liability is the
Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment) Act, 1994. This act inserted Article 21-A into the
Constitution, which provides for free and compulsory education to all children between the
ages of six and fourteen. The act also inserted Article 51-A(k) into the Constitution, which
imposes a duty on every citizen to "protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures."9
The significance of this legislative act is that it establishes the state's liability for the
provision of free and compulsory education to all children, as well as for the protection and
improvement of the natural environment. This means that if the state fails to fulfill these
obligations, citizens can hold it accountable and seek legal redress for any harm caused as a
result of its failure to act.
Moreover, the expansion of state liability in India can be traced back to the landmark case of
Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court of India held
that the state can be held liable for the tortious acts of its officials. This decision paved the
way for the development of the law of torts in India, allowing citizens to seek compensation
from the state for harm caused by the negligent acts of its officials.
The legislative act that established and expanded state liability, coupled with the development
of the law of torts in India, has helped to ensure greater accountability for the state's actions.
This has strengthened the rights of citizens and allowed them to seek legal redress for harm
caused by the state's actions or inactions.
What is the concept of sovereign immunity in international law? What are some
exceptions to sovereign immunity recognized in international law?

9
The constitution of India, Art.21-A/ Art 51-(G) (k)
Sovereign immunity is a concept in international law that grants immunity to a state from
legal proceedings in the courts of another state. It is based on the principle that every state is
equal and independent, and therefore, cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another state
without its consent.
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a state is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign
courts in civil and criminal matters, as well as from the enforcement of foreign judgments.
This immunity extends to the state itself, its agencies, and its officials acting in their official
capacity.
However, there are certain exceptions to sovereign immunity that have been recognized in
international law. These include:
1. Commercial activity: A state is not immune from legal proceedings in cases where it
engages in commercial activity. This exception is based on the idea that when a state
engages in commercial activity, it is acting as a private entity and not as a sovereign.
2. Tortious acts: A state can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its officials or
agents. This exception is based on the idea that a state should be held accountable for
the actions of its officials or agents that cause harm to individuals or property.
3. Human rights violations: A state can be held liable for human rights violations
committed by its officials or agents. This exception is based on the idea that human
rights are universal and that states have an obligation to protect them.
4. Waiver: A state can waive its sovereign immunity and consent to jurisdiction in
foreign courts. This exception allows a state to voluntarily subject itself to the
jurisdiction of a foreign court.
5. Jus cogens: A state cannot claim immunity from legal proceedings in cases involving
a violation of jus cogens norms of international law. Jus cogens norms are peremptory
norms of international law that are recognized as binding on all states.
In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards limiting sovereign immunity in cases
of human rights violations and other serious crimes. This has led to an increased focus on the
role of international tribunals and the development of international criminal law.