KASTURILAL RALIA RAM JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Citation:1965
AIR 1039
Bench:Gajendragadkar,
P.B. (CJ), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R.
Applicable law:Article 300(1) of the Constitution of India – State liability for
tortious acts of its servants.
FACTS
Ralia Ram was taken into custody by three
police constables on suspicion of being possession of stolen property. His
property inclusing gold, weighing 103 tolas 6 mashas and 1 ratti, silver
weighing 2 maunds and 6 ½ seers were seized and kept in malkhana till the
disposal of case. On 21st September, 1947 he was released on bail
and after sometime only the silver seized from him was returned to him. Raila
Ram then made repeated demands for the return of the gold which had been seized
from him and since he could not recover the gold from the police officers, he
filed the present suit against the respondent in which he claimed a decree that
the gold seized from him should either be returned to him, or, in the
alternative, its value should be ordered to be paid to him.
The alternative claim thus made by him
consisted of Rs. 11,075-10-0 as the price of the gold and Rs.355 as interest by
way of damages as well as future interest. The respondent resisted the claim
and contended that they were not liable to return either the gold or pay the
money vale of gold with interest. The respondent accused Mohammad Amir, who was
then the head constable, flew away to Pakistan with the gold and some other
cash and things kept in malkhana on 17th October, 1947. The gold was
kept in police malkhana under his charge. Case has been registered u/s. 409 of
the Indian Penal Code and s. 29 of the Police Act against Mohammad Amir but
nothing effective could be done in spite of the best efforts made by police
department. The respondent pleaded that state would not be held guilty for
negligence.
Procedural History
The Trial Court found favour of the appellant
and ordered a decree to pay money value of gold. The respondents challenged the
correctness of this decreeby an
appeal before the
Allahabad High Court and it was urged on its behalf that the trial Court was in
error regarding both the findings recorded by it in favour of the appellant.
These pleas have been upheld by the High Court. It was found that no negligence
had been established against the police officers in question and that even if
it was assumed that the police officers were negligent and their negligence led
to the loss of gold, that would not justify the appellant’s claim for a money
decree against the respondent.
The appellant then moved to the Supreme Court
by an appeal. They urged that the High Court was in error in both the findings
recorded by it in favour of the respondent. The first finding is one of fact
and the second is one of law.
ISSUES
Two substantial questions
arose between the parties:
- Whether
the police officers in question were guilty of negligence in the matter of
taking care of the gold which had been seized from Ralia Ram?
- Whether
the respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh should be held liable to compensate
the appellant for the loss caused to it by the negligence of the public
servants employed by the respondent/
HELD
The Supreme Court in the
present case, after considering all the evidence and appeals rose from the side
of appellants, observed that “The powers to arrest a
person, to search him, to seize property found with him, are powers conferred
on specified officers by statute and are powers which could be properly
characterized as sovereign powers. Therefore, though the negligent act
was committed by the employees of the respondent-State during their employment,
the claim against the State could not be sustained, because, the employment in
question was of the category which could claim the special characteristic of
sovereign power.”
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Supreme Court in
Kasturilal’s case is not satisfactory and has been criticized by leading
constitutional authority. It fails to appreciate the modern development of law
where there is no logical basis for State immunity which has been abolished in
the country of its origin. Although the decision of Supreme Court in this case
is yet to be overruled subsequent decisions have greatly undermined its
authority and are hardly ever used as a precedent. The Courts in later years,
by liberal interpretation, limited the immunity of State by holding more and
more functions of the State as non-Sovereign. To ensure the personal liberty of
individuals from abuse of public power, a new remedy was created by the Apex
court to grant damages through writ petitions under Article 32 and Article 226
of the Constitution.
The latest case ofState of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy[1]
on the point clearly indicates that the distinction between Sovereign and
non-Sovereign powers have no relevance in the present times. The Apex Court
held that the doctrine of Sovereign immunity is no longer valid. Thus, an
attempt has been made to distinguish the sovereign and non-sovereign functions
with the help of principles laid down in the various judgments rendered by the
Apex Court. However, as no interpretation of the term ‘sovereign functions’
exists, the differentiation has to be made with the help of interpretation of
the term as has been carried out for other legislations.
PRECEDENTS
Ø
In this case, the Supreme Court followed the rule laid down in P.S.O. Steam Navigation case[2]
by distinguishing Sovereign and non-Sovereign functions of the state and held
that abuse of police power is a Sovereign act, therefore State is not liable.
It may also be noted that Vidyawati’s
case was distinguished as being confined to tortuous liability arising from
the exercise of sovereign power.
Ø In the present case, the appellants took the
support of the principle recognized by this Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr,[3]wherein
a claim was made by the respondents for damages against the State of Rajasthan
and the said claim was allowed by this Court. In upholding the decision of the
High Court which had granted the claim, this Court observed that the liability
of the State for damages in respect of a tortious act committed by its servant
within the scope of his employment and functioning as such was the same as that
of any other employer. In support of this conclusion, the court said that the
immunity of the Crown in the United Kingdom was based on the old feudalistic
notions of justice, namely that the King was incapable of doing a wrong, and,
therefore he could not be sued in his courts. Such a notion was inconsistent
with the Republican form of Government in our country, particularly because in
pursuit of their welfare and socialistic objectives, States in India undertook
various industrial and other activities and had to employ a large army of
servants. Thus, there would be no justification that why the State should not
be held liable vicariously for the tortious acts of its servants. It is, on
these observations that Mr. M. S. K. Sastri relied on and contended that the
said observations as well as the decision itself can be, easily extended and
applied to the facts in the present case.
- The
court while giving its judgment considered the following decisions
upholding the side of respondents
REFERENCES
Books
1. Constitution
of India – J.N. Pandey
2. Indian
Constitutional Law – M.P. Jain
Online Resources
[1] (2000) 5 SCC 712
[2]Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company vs. Secretary of State
for India, (1861)
5 Bom HCR.
[3] 1962 SC 933.
0 Comments