State Liability for Tortuous Acts by Its Servants

Topics: Tort, Law, Human rights Pages: 28 (8338 words) Published: July 3, 2013
RESEARCH ARTICLE – CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS IN INDIA

Subject: LAW OF TORTS

Submitted by: P S S BHARGAVA

Submitted to: Prof. MADABUSHI SRIDHARACHARYULU

Roll No. : 2012-39

NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As a part of my research project I have used doctrinal method. I have referred to various cases and tracked the development and evolution of Law of Torts. In this project I would like to discuss the evolution of constitutional torts in India. Under civil law only private individuals can be held liable. But, under this branch of Law Of Torts, the state is held liable for the injuries caused by its servants. This project deals with the cases wherein inalienable Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of the individuals have been infringed. I would briefly trace the need, evolution and expansion of constitutional torts in India.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Definition of a tort5
Liability of a state5
Article 3006
Evolution of Constitutional Tort7
Need For Constitutional Torts8
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium9
Injuria Sine Damnum9
Essentials for Constitutional Torts9
Differences between constitutional tort and private tort10
CASES WHICH LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS11
Kethri v. state of Bihar11
Rudal Shah V. State of Bihar11
BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF J & K12
LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS12
Saheli v. Commissioner Of Police, Delhi13
PUDR v. Commissioner of Police Delhi13
K P HUSSAIN REDDY v. EXECUTIVE ENGEINEER, MI DIVISION, NANDYALA13
D K Basu v. State of West Bengal14
Darshan & Others (Smt.)Vs. Union of India & Ors14
Challa Ramkrishna Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh15
Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India15
Rape of foreign woman by state functionaries15

Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das15

Violation of fundamental right due to negligence of state functionaries16

P.A. Narayanan V. Union Of India16
Union of India v. Prabhakaran16
CASE OF 201016

Neema Goyal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr16

NEED FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES………………………………………………………..17

Rookes v. Barnard……………………………………………………………………...17

PROS AND CONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS…………………………………18

Evolution of Human Rights and Expansion of ‘Right to Life’……………………………… 19

POSIITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS IN USA………………………………………..19

METHOD OF CALCULATION OF DAMAGES…………………………………………... 20

IS THERE A NEED FOR LEGISLATION?........................................................................ 20

SUGGESTIONS………………………………………………………………………… 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….. 24 Definition of a tort:

Though a definite definition of a Tort is not possible, on a general observation, many scholars have attempted to define a tort.
Winfield defined it as:
“Tortious liability arises from a breach of a duty primarily fixed by law: this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for un liquated damages”.
Salmond defines it as:
“Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for un liquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of trust or other merely equitable obligations”.

From the above definitions we observe that
1. Tort Is a civil wrong
2. It is a law of obligations to not harm others and compensate if there is an injury because of the harm 3. Compensation is sought through the award of un liquated damages. 4. There should be a legal damage to the plaintiff because of the actions of the defendant.

So we infer that if an act or omission by one person causes a legal injury to the other person, then it is compensated on a demand for un liquidated...


Bibliography: 3. S.P . Sathe, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Wash. U . J . L. & Pol’y 029 (2001), http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/wujlp/vol6/iss1/3

5. Wells, Michael L., "Constitutional T orts, Common Law T orts, and Due Process of Law" (1997). Scholarly Works. Paper 457,
http://digitalcommons.law
[ 4 ]. Crown proceedings act, 1947
[ 5 ]
[ 11 ]. (1989) 4 SCC 730
[ 12 ]
[ 26 ]. Ashby v. white, (1703) 2 Ld. Raym, 938
[ 27 ]
[ 33 ]. 1981 SCR (2) 408
[ 34 ]
[ 42 ]. 1989 (1) SCALE 114.
[ 47 ]. 79(1999)DLT432.
[ 54 ]. 2011VAD(Delhi)617.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Abuse and Civil Liability Act
  • Parents Childs Liability Act Essay
  • Vicarious Liability of the State Essay
  • Servant Leadership Essay
  • Essay about Liability
  • A Servant To Servants Essay
  • Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 Research Paper
  • What is the nature of tortuous liability and contractual liability? comparing and contrasting Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free