Case Name: -STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v.
CHALLA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY
Citation: - AIR2000SC2083
Bench: - SAIYED SAGHIR AHMAD & D.P. WADHWA
(If there is any negligence on part of officers of
state, then State will be liable to pay damages.)
FACTS:
Mr ChallaChinnappa Reddy and
his son named Mr Challa Rama Krishna Reddy were involved in a criminal act of
Case No. 18/1997 of Owk Police Station in BaganpalleTaluk of Kurnool District.
Because of this particular act, they were arrested on 25th April,
1977 and were sent to the judicial custody on remand on 26th April,
1977. They were kept in Cell No.7 of Koilkuntla sub-jail and between the nights
of 5th or 6th of May, 1977 around 3:30 A.M., some persons
entered this sub-jail and bombed the Cell. No.07.
Because of this incident,
ChallaChinnappa Reddy sustained grievous injuries and was died in the
Government Hospital of Kurnool and his son somehow escaped this incident and
only affected with minor injuries. The family members of ChallaChinnappa Reddy
i.e., Challa Rama Krishna reddy, four other brothers and his mother against the
state of Andhra Pradesh for claiming damages of worth 10 lakhs on the basis of
negligence of the State which resulted in the death of ChallaChinnappa Reddy.
Procedural History before the appeal:-
When the suit was filed
before the trial court, on the grounds of limitation and the sovereign immunity
the case was dismissed. Aggrieved with this decision they filed an appeal
before High Court and the Court awarded damages of worth 1, 44,000/- with 6% of
interest from the date of the suit and which is why the reason the State of
Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal before Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the suit was barred
by limitation that no damages can be awarded to the respondents or not?
2. Whether the State is immune
from any kind of legal action or not? Though there is negligence on the part of
the officers of the state.
ARGUMENTS:-
Appellants
Ø
The appellants contended that suit was barred by limitation as states
under Article-72 of Limitation Act, 1963. The suit can only be filed within one
year i.e., the act committed in 1977 but the suit was filed in 1980 which was
barred by time.
Ø
The prisons all over the country was established and maintained by the
Central Government and the State is immune from any kind of legal action and
the suit for compensation is not maintainable.
Ø
The case of KasturilalRalia Ram Jain v. State of U.P[1] should be
taken into consideration as the state cannot do any wrong in which the
Sovereign Immunity would be coming into picture.
Respondents:
Ø
The respondents argued that the nature of the present suit is not
governed by any residuary article which is why the reason Art-113 would be
coming into picture where the time period of 3 years will be established but
not the Article-72.
Ø
They also argued that they have sent the representation to the Collector
and the Home Minister that their lives are at stake and the police officials
have conspired to kill them. No serious action was taken in spite of
representation.
Ø
The respondents contended that the theory of immunity has been exploded
in many decisions and even damages were also awarded against the State even in respect
of custodial deaths.
Ø
They further argued that Article-72 will be coming into picture only
when a public officer acting in a bona fide way in pursuance of any Act commits
any tort and it would not protect those public officials
who act with a mala fide intention.
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court of India
referred the case of N.Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2], in which it
was held that no civilized system can permit any executive with the people of
its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner because of its
sovereignty. The Legal system cannot place the state above law because it
deprives the rights of the citizens due to the negligent acts of the officers
of the state.
The court already took an
initiative in awarding the compensation to those people who have been suffered
due to the acts of the state. It would not make any kind of difference as the
present case is mainly dealing with 2 vital factors i.e., Police Conspiracy
& Negligence. Here, it is clear that the state cannot be immune for the
negligence act which was committed and which is why the reason the appeal got
dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
Basically, in this case the
Supreme Court of India dealt with the Sovereign Immunity (English Maxim) but
however the Court made it clear that State cannot be granted any kind of
immunity for their negligence acts because it deprives the fundamental rights
of the victims. In this case, the Supreme Court referred to the Nagendra Rao v.
State of A.P where the court made it clear that State cannot plead sovereign
immunity any more for its negligent acts.
This was one of the great
decision given by the Supreme Court with respect to sovereign immunity where
the citizens of civilized country would not be deprived of their rights and the
compensation will also be provided to them.
PRECEDENTS:
Ø SanthoshUpadhyay and Ors v.
State of Uttarakhad and Ors[3]
Ø Shiv Kumar Verma and Ors v.
State of U.P and Ors[4]
Ø JitlalMahato and Ors v.
State of Assam[5]
0 Comments