Landmark judgements on Constitutional Tort

1. P & O Navigation Company v Secretary of State for India– This was the first case in which
the Sovereign immunity of the state was debated. There was a piece of a funnel made up of iron
which was being carried by some workers on a Government’s steamer, which in its way hit plaintiff’s
horse-driven carriage. Plaintiff sued the Govt. for damages due to negligence on the part of the
servants employed by the govt.
Held- “The Government cannot be held liable when the injuries are caused while carrying out sovereign
functions but is liable when the acts of the servants are non-sovereign functions”.

2. Nobin Chunder Dey v Secretary of State– When the Plaintiff pleaded for damages for refusal
of Government to give him licence to sell liquor and drugs, it was held that it was out of sovereign
functions of the state and thus, is out of reach of tortious liability. Since this decision, the distinction
between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is the foremost criteria that are looked into by the
courts in their judgements.

3. Rajasthan v Mst. Vidyawati– The facts were that in this case- a Government jeep hit a
pedestrian who eventually died of an accident. The plea of Sovereign immunity was rejected but it
was held that the government cannot be held liable for the “Act of State” under Article 300.
Compensation of Rs. 15000 was given. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that “in the modern era,
the liability of State is not limited to Sovereign functions, but is socialistic and is related to the
welfare of the people and thus, the old immunity of State functions is irrelevant”.

4. Kasturi Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh– The police seized the gold which belonged to the
Plaintiff. The head constable later misappropriated the gold and flew with it to Pakistan. The Court
did not take account of the judgement in Vidyawati case and ruled in favour of the State stating
that the act was sovereign in nature. It was held that the law established in P & O Navigation is
still good law. The court was not pleased as it could help the Plaintiff with its ruling. Through this
judgement, in addition to disapproving the law in Vidyawati, it was also added by the Court that
the state is not liable when the tort is done in statutory power by its servants.

5. N. Nagendra Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh– It was held that the ratio of Kasturi Lal is
applicable in rare cases only where the statutory authority to carry out certain functions are
delegated. In any civil society, the state cannot be allowed to play with the rights of the citizens and
take the plea of sovereign function and thus, it cannot be treated above and against the rule of law.

6. Devaki Nandan Prasad v State of Bihar– In this landmark ruling, the Apex court laid the
foundation of new reasoning in matters involving constitutional tort and compensation. In this case,
the plaintiff who has been denied his pension, without much discussion, was allowed to recover
exemplary damages of Rs. 25000 for being harassed by the defendant deliberately.

7. Rudal Shah v State of Bihar– In this case, the petitioner had filed a case against the state for
his illegal imprisonment for 14 years and asked for compensation and rehabilitation cost. The
question presented before the Apex court was whether the court can award monetary damages
under its jurisdiction as given in Article 32 or not.
The court gave the answer in affirmative by stating that monetary damages under article 32 may be granted
and thus gave a judgement that proved to be a giant leap in the cases involving both constitutional tort and
compensation.

The judgement formulated two landmark rules by holding that:

1.Civil liability can arise when constitutional rights are violated.

2.Civil liability can also emerge when there is a violation of personal liberty.
8.Saheli v Commissioner of Police– In this judgement, the ratio in Vidyawati was revisited and
upheld by its application. When a child died by police assault and beating, the compensation of Rs.
75000 was granted and the Delhi Administration was allowed to recover the same from the officials
which were responsible for the incident.
9.Common Cause, A registered society v Union of India– In this judgement, the court ruled
that when there is a violation of fundamental rights of the person, the remedy for him is available
under public law despite the fact that there is an optional remedy in private law also. The distinction
between damages and remedies given in private and public law were evaluated and this judgement
opened the way for the development and growth of public law torts increasing State’s liability.