III. Table of Contents
VII. Case Study
* By the Trial Court
* By the High Court
* By the Supreme Court
3. Basis of Judgement
4. Case reference
VIII. Sovereign Immunity
1. Journey of the Doctrine
1.1Pre Constitutional Era
1.2 Post Independence and Constitution of India
IX. Sovereign Functions & Non-Sovereign Function
X. Critically Analysis of the case
1. Vicarious liability
3. Violation of Right to Property
5. Case Reference
XI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..…….. XII. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..….……. Introduction
“Law is the great civilizing machinery. It liberates the desire to build and subdues the desire to destroy. And if war can tear us apart, Law can unite us – out of fear, or love or reason, or all three. Law is the greatest human invention. All the rest, give man mastery over his world. Law gives him mastery over himself”
Justice has been regarded as one of the greatest concerns of mankind on this planet. Edmund Burke said, that justice is itself the “great standing policy of civil society”. Scholars of political science and legal theory tell us, that the administration of justice is one of the primary objects for which society was formed. Our Constitution, in its very preamble, speaks of justice as one of the great values which its makers have cherished. The Old and archaic concept of Sovereign immunity that “King can do no wrong” still haunts us, where the state claim immunity for its tortious acts and denies compensation to the aggrieved party. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on the Common Law principle borrowed from the British Jurisprudence that the King commits no wrong and that he cannot be guilty of personal negligence or misconduct, and as such cannot be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of his servants. Another aspect of this doctrine was that it was an attribute of sovereignty that a State cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. The case reported in 1965 “Kasturilal Raila Ram Jain vs. state of Uttar Pradesh” is the topic or our project. In this case the plaintiff was taken into custody on suspicion of being in possession of stolen property. His property including certain quantity of gold and silver was taken from him and kept in the Malkhana till the disposal of the case. The gold and silver was misappropriated by a police constable who fled to Pakistan. The appellant sued the State of Uttar Pradesh for return of the gold and silver and as alternative claimed damages for loss caused by negligence of the Meerut police. The state contended that no liability would accrue for acts committed by a public servant where such acts were related to the exercise of sovereign power of the state. The Supreme Court held that the state was not liable. So here we are trying to show that the judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India was not in favour of justice. Justice still waiting…. and the judgement should be overruled by the Supreme Court, because the concept of sovereign function needs amendment. The law is dynamic it should be change according to the situation. In this case law is look like static which is not good for the justice
Aims and Objective
* To critically examine the case.
* Study the various aspects of the case.
* To Understand what is the sovereign and non sovereign functions * Origin of sovereign and non sovereign function in india * Identifying the practical presence sovereign functions with the help of U.K. and U.S.A. * How sovereign functions are related with vicarious liability of the state * Discuss some prominent cases related with sovereign functions of the state * Trying to justifying that judgment given by...