Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
Provinces DEFENDANTS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr.
INDEX Page no.
No.
1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8 PRAYER
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
CASES
3
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
I.e. That is
Pg Page
Hon’ble Honourable
SC Supreme Court
Sec Section
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4
The Appellants have filed the present Civil Revision before the Hon’ble
High Court, Allahabad under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
which reads as follows:
115. Revision—The High Court may call for the record of any case which
has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in
which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b)to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with mate-
rial irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it
thinks fit:
[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or re-
verse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a
suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in
favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the
suit or other proceedings.]
[(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any de-
cree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to
any Court subordinate thereto.
[(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding be-
fore the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the
High Court.]
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6
g. Through various sources, the Plaintiffs were informed that the orna-
ments are not available at the Malkhana, on account of the negligence
of the defendant's servants.
h. Despite repeated requests of the Plaintiffs for return of their property,
the said ornaments were not handed back to the rightful owners i.e the
Plaintiffs.
i. It is an admitted fact during the trial that the ornaments were stolen
from the Malkhana and are untraceable.
j. Hence, the Plaintiffs pressed for alternative relief only, for the recov-
ery of their price on the ground that the ornaments were lost on ac-
count of the negligence of the Government servants, and the Govern-
ment was liable for their tortuous conduct. Plea was overruled and the
suit dismissed.
k. Hence, this Revision application.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Courts of law derive their existence, jurisdiction and authority from
the State itself; and have, therefore, no jurisdiction over it and no authority
to pronounce any binding adjudication against it, except in so far as the
State has consented to submit to their jurisdiction and to abide by their de-
8
cisions. This consent may be found in the Constitution of the State itself,
or in the laws enacted by it, or even in the executive orders issued by it.
Government is the political organisation through which the sovereign will
of the State finds expression, and through which the State functions. A suit
by a citizen against the Government is thus, in substance, a suit against the
State by its own citizen and is regulated by the same principles as it would
be in a person v. person suit.
There are several cases in which the liability of the Secretary of State to be
sued for tortious acts of Government servants has been judicially consid-
ered, and the question that has arisen in this case is not res integra.
The actions of the Police are in capacity of the servants of the Govern-
ment, hence the Government is automatically liable for any tortious act of
its servants.
9
countable the activities and actions of Government servants as any wrong-
doing could be disguised under the garb of “sovereign function”.
This would give rise to rampant corruption of morals and institutions and
result in humongous injustice upon the Republic who entrust the State for
their protection.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1.
So far as the English law is concerned, this juristic principle, based on the
theory of sovereignty, has found expression in such rules as 'The King can
do no wrong,' and 'No action lies against the Grown’. English law contains
no general principle of non-discrimination. This deficiency ought to be
rectified: non-discrimination is a key aspect of the principle of equality be-
fore the law. However, the same principle has found no place in the demo-
cratic conscience of the world. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US
Constitution guarantees equality before law to all persons.
11
Amdt 14.1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
No person, authority or chair is above the law. Every civilised State has,
hence, to some extent, recognised the moral claim of a citizen to redress
against itself and has, therefore, consented to submit to the jurisdiction of
the Courts to that extent.
12
(1)The Federation may sue, or be sued by the name of the federation of In-
dia and a Provincial Government may sue or be sued by the name of
the Province, and, without prejudice to the subsequent provisions of
this chapter, may, subject to any provisions which may he made by the
Act of the Federal or a Provincial Legislature enacted by virtue of
powers conferred on that Legislature by this Act, sue or be sued in re-
lation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Secretary of
State in Council might have sued or been sued if this Act had not been
passed.
(2)The Provincial Governments have thus been made liable to be sued, in
respect of affairs of the Provinces, to the same extent to which the Sec-
retary of State was liable to be sued before the Constitution Act, 1935.
This liability of the Secretary of the State is to be found in Section 32,
Constitution Act of 1919, according to which:
(3)"Every person shall have the same remedies against the Secretary of
State in Council as he might have had against the East India Company
if the Government of India Act, 1858, and this Act had not been passed.
The result of reading these two sections together is that only such suits are
maintainable against the Provincial Governments in respect of affairs of
the Provinces, as could be maintained against the East India Company be-
fore the Government of India Act, 1858 that is, before the direct govern-
ment of this country was assumed by the British Crown. In order to deter-
mine, therefore, whether the present suit is maintainable against the Pro-
vincial Government it is necessary to determine whether a suit for com-
13
pensation was maintainable against the East India Company for the tor-
tious acts of its servants.
There are several cases in which the liability of the Secretary of State to be
sued for tortious acts of Government servants has been judicially consid-
ered, and the question that has arisen in this case is not res integra.
“The jurisdiction of Court was ousted in respect of acts of State and not
with respect to acts done under colour of Municipal law, that the Peninsu-
lar Company's case, does not decide anything beyond this that no charac-
ter of sovereignty attached to the commercial operations of the Company
and that it was liable to be sued in respect of wrongs done in the course of
such operations, that it does not decide that no suit could be maintained in
respect of wrongs done in the operation of sovereign rights, that every act
performed in the exercise of sovereign rights is not an act of State and that
acts of State are only such acts which do not pretend to justify themselves
by any canon of Municipal law.”
2 5 Mad 273
15
Therefore, from the authorities cited above it is abundantly clear that the
Government is liable for the actions of its servants since there is a clear ex-
istence of a master-servant relationship.
ISSUE 2.
16
a. The Plaintiffs were robbed and their precious Jewellery was stolen.
b. The Plaintiffs approached the Police and lodged a complaint.
c. The Police, duty bound by the law and in capacity as the servants of
the State began investigating and found the said stolen jewellery.
d. When the Jewellery was found, it should have been handed over to
its rightful owners, the Plaintiffs, however it was kept in the
Malkhana as evidence for Prosecution of the accused.
e. The Jewellery was stolen.
It is most respectfully submitted that after all is said and done the Plaintiffs
stand to incur a financial as well as judicial loss. The common jurispruden-
tial principle of ‘Respondent Superior’ is applicable here. The case is
straight as an arrow. No, turns, no confusing twists whatsoever. However,
the State is looking to unburden themselves of the liability of the negligent
actions of their servants, pushing the Plaintiffs into depths of injustice by
entangling them into a barrage of technical knowhow, being perfectly
aware that the Plaintiffs are poor, uneducated citizens who would be un-
able to combat this aggressive technical bombarding. The Hon’ble Court
must take cognisance of this action by the State as this Court of Law is the
last viable remedy available to the Plaintiffs.
“That the Peninsular Company's case, only established that the East India
Company or that the Secretary of State did not enjoy immunity in respect
3 37 Mad 55
17
of torts committed in transactions that could be carried on by private indi-
viduals and that whether the immunity extended in respect of torts commit-
ted in the performance of transactions in the exercise of sovereign author-
ity was not finally decided in that case.”
4 28 Bom 314
18
b. The liability was not enforceable on the Governor of Bombay since
he was no appointed by the Governor himself.
However this second part of the principle cannot be applied to this present
case since the Investigating officer was appointed by the Government of
United Provinces.
Therefore it is crystal clear that the Plaintiffs would suffer heinous miscar-
riage of Justice if they are not indemnified against their rightful property,
their Jewellery.
PRAYER
In the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
19
And pass any such order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit I the best
interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience and for this the
Plaintiffs as in duty, shall humbly pray.
Sd/-
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
20