Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
State is not liable where the tortious act was committed by servants in the exercise of statutory powers that can be characterised as sovereign powers.
Facts
Ralia Ram, a partner in a firm of jewellers, was taken into police custody at Meerut on suspicion of possessing stolen property; gold and silver he carried were seized and kept in the police Malkhana under the Cr.P.C. The silver was returned, but the gold was misappropriated by the Head Constable who fled to Pakistan. The firm sued the State of U.P. for return of the gold or compensation of about Rs. 11,000.
Issues
- Whether the State was vicariously liable for the negligence and misappropriation of police officers in dealing with seized property.
- Whether seizure and custody of property under statutory police powers amounted to exercise of sovereign power.
Arguments
The plaintiff argued the State, like a bailee, was bound to return the property or compensate for its loss caused by the negligence of its officers. The State pleaded that the police were exercising statutory powers of arrest, search and seizure, which are sovereign powers attracting immunity.
Held
The Supreme Court held the State not liable. The power to arrest, search and seize property are statutory powers which in the last analysis are sovereign powers, and the negligent act was committed in their exercise. Reaffirming the P&O distinction, the Court held no action lies for torts committed in the discharge of delegated sovereign functions. Gajendragadkar, C.J., however expressed dissatisfaction with the unsatisfactory state of the law and suggested the remedy lay with the Legislature.
Ratio decidendi
If a tortious act is committed by a public servant in discharge of statutory functions referable to and based on a delegation of the sovereign powers of the State, no action for damages lies against the State.
Significance
The high-water mark of sovereign immunity in independent India and still technically good law, though its force has been substantially diluted ('bypassed') by later decisions awarding compensation, particularly under Article 21, and by N. Nagendra Rao which declared sovereign immunity largely irrelevant today.
Related
Test yourself on Law of Torts. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
