UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

ABSTRACT

This article provides a thorough examination of sovereign immunity, a significant legal principle that shields states from various legal actions. The research discusses the development of the law historically, its frameworks, exceptions, famous instances, criticisms, and contemporary trends. The article establishes the historical background of sovereign immunity by tracing its beginnings and growth. Analyzing the jurisdictional issues reveals how courts handle matters involving sovereign entities, striking a balance between state autonomy and responsibility. There are different types of sovereign immunity, such as immunity from judgement and execution. Examining the doctrine’s exceptions reveals situations in which states may be held legally liable, upholding the balance between justice and state sovereignty. Examining landmark rulings that have influenced how sovereign immunity is interpreted demonstrates the complex interaction of legal concepts that determine how sovereign immunity is applied. The article addresses criticisms and digs into discussions regarding the consequences of sovereign immunity in a globally connected world. Finally, recent changes in judicial perspectives and jurisprudential precedents are examined.

Keywords:

Jurisdictional Issues, State Autonomy, Sovereign Immunity, Jurisprudential Precedents, Justice

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is a legal principle that protects the government and its agencies from being sued without its consent. It reflects the idea that the state should not be subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and allows governments to operate without the fear of legal action. In India, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is recognized and governed by various laws and judicial pronouncements which provide immunity to the government from lawsuits.

The legal maxim commonly associated with the immunity of sovereignty is “rex non protest peccare,” which translates to “the king can do no wrong.” This principle reflects the idea that the sovereign or the state is immune from legal liability for its actions. It is based on the notion that the state, as the supreme authority, is not bound by the same laws that govern individuals, and thus cannot be held responsible for its actions in the same way.

However, it is important to note that the concept of sovereign immunity has evolved over time, and its application may vary in different jurisdictions. While the underlying principle of immunity remains, modern legal systems often provide exceptions and limitations to the immunity of sovereignty. These exceptions may allow individuals to seek redress in specific cases, such as for tortious acts or contractual breaches by the state. Furthermore, many countries have enacted legislation or entered international treaties to regulate and govern the scope of sovereign immunity.

In India, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is recognized and governed by laws such as the State Immunity Act, 1972, which provides the legal framework for immunity of sovereign states from the jurisdiction of Indian courts. It is important to consult the relevant laws and judicial interpretations specific to your jurisdiction for a comprehensive understanding of the principles and applications related to sovereign immunity.

RELEVANT ACTS

Under Indian law, the concept of sovereign immunity is not explicitly recognized or codified in a single comprehensive legislation. However, certain laws and principles provide a certain degree of immunity to the government. It is important to note that the extent of sovereign immunity can differ based on the nature of the state action and the jurisdiction in which the claim is being made.

Several acts and its provisions are:

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is a comprehensive legislation that aims to provide compensation to victims of accidents caused by handling hazardous substances. Below are the key sections of the Act and their explanations:

Section 3: Liability to give relief in certain cases on principle of no fault. —

(1) Where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief as is specified in the Schedule for such death, injury or damage.

(2) In any claim for relief under sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to in this Act as claim for relief), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(i) “workman” has the meaning assigned to it in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923

(8 of 1923);

(ii) “injury” includes permanent total or permanent partial disability or sickness resulting out of

an accident.^[1]

This section establishes the liability of the owner, occupier, or person in charge of any vessel, handling hazardous substances for any damage caused by an accident involving such substances. It specifies that the liability is “no-fault,” meaning that negligence or fault need not be proven to establish liability.

Section 4: Duty of owner to take out insurance policies —

This section mandates that every person who handles hazardous substances must take out an insurance policy to cover their liability for potential accidents. The policy must be taken from an insurer who is approved by the Central Government and must be always in force.

Section 5: Verification and publication of accident by Collector. —

Whenever it comes to the notice of the Collector that an accident has occurred at any place within his jurisdiction, he shall verify the occurrence of such accident and cause publicity to be given in such manner as he deems fit for inviting applications under sub-section (1) of section 6.^[2]

This section specifies the minimum amount of insurance coverage required under the Act. It empowers the Central Government to prescribe the maximum liability amount to be covered by the policy, which may vary depending on the type of hazardous substance, the scale of operations, or other factors.

Section 6: Duty of owner to take out insurance policies. –

According to this section, any owner who deals with hazardous substances is obligated to obtain an insurance policy. The insurance policy must cover their liability for any harm or injury caused to individuals, as well as any damage to property, resulting from an accident that occurs while handling such hazardous substances. The intention behind this provision is to ensure that in the event of an accident involving hazardous substances, compensation can be provided promptly to affected individuals or property owners.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the immunity of the government from being sued in civil proceedings.

Section 79 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Suits by or against Government

In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be-

in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India, and
in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State.^[3]

It states that:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to authorise any Court to entertain any suit or proceeding against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, unless the suit or proceeding is instituted with the consent of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.”

This provision grants immunity to the government and public officers from civil suits unless there is explicit consent from the Central Government or the State Government, depending on the level of government involved.

Key points to note about Section 79 of the CPC:

1. Immunity of the Government: The provision protects the government and its public officers from being sued for any act purportedly done in their official capacity. This immunity is extended to prevent unnecessary harassment of the government in carrying out its official functions.

2. Consent Requirement: For a suit or proceeding against the government or public officer to be entertained by the court, consent from the Central Government or the State Government, depending on the case, is necessary. This consent acts as a waiver of the immunity and allows the court to proceed with the case.

3. Official Capacity: The immunity under Section 79 applies to acts done by public officers in their official capacity. This means that if the act was performed in the course of their official duties, the government and its officers cannot be held liable unless the necessary consent has been obtained.

It is important to note that Section 79 applies specifically to civil proceedings and the immunity granted under this provision is distinct from the immunity granted under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which is primarily governed by the State Immunity Act, 1972.

The Constitution of India

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of sovereign immunity. However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is derived from the principles of separation of powers and the sovereignty of the state, which are enshrined in the Constitution.

Under the Indian legal system, the government and its agencies enjoy a certain degree of immunity from legal actions. This immunity is based on the principle that the state should not be subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts without its consent, allowing the government to perform its functions without fear of legal challenges and hindrances.

While the Constitution does not expressly address sovereign immunity, it provides a framework for the functioning of the government and the relationship between the state and its citizens. Some provisions of the Constitution that relate to sovereign immunity and the powers of the government include:

Article 300. Suits and proceedings. —

(1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.

(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution—

(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of

India is a party; the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for

the Dominion in those proceedings; and

(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an

Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the Province or the Indian State in those proceedings.^[4]

This article states that the government of India and the governments of the states cannot be sued in relation to any contractual obligations and legal obligations. This can be considered as an implied recognition of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Article 361: Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs. —

The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties:

Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under article 61: Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor 1*** of a State, in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor 1*** of a State, shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor 1*** of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office as President, or as Governor 1*** of such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor 1***, as the case may be, or left at his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which he claims.^[5]

This article provides immunity to the President, Governors, and Rajpramukhs from any criminal or civil proceedings for their official acts during their term of office.

Article 294: Succession to property, assets, rights, liabilities and obligations in certain cases.—As from the commencement of this Constitution—

(a) all property and assets which immediately before such commencement were vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of the Dominion of India and all property and assets which immediately before such commencement were vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of each Governor’s Province shall vest respectively in the Union and the corresponding State, and (Part XII.—Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits)

(b) all rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of the Dominion of India and of the Government of each Governor’s Province, whether arising out of any contract or otherwise, shall be the rights, liabilities and obligations respectively of the Government of India and the Government of each corresponding State, subject to any adjustment made or to be made by reason of the creation before the commencement of this Constitution of the Dominion of Pakistan or of the Provinces of West Bengal, East Bengal, West Punjab and East Punjab.^[6]

This article deals with the succession and property rights of the government and provides certain safeguards for properties owned by the government or the states.

Article 105 and Article 194: These articles provide immunity to members of Parliament and state legislatures in relation to their speeches and votes during the proceedings of the respective houses.

In summary, while the Indian Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, its principles and provisions contribute to the framework that allows the government and its agencies to enjoy a degree of immunity from legal actions. The specific application and interpretation of sovereign immunity may be influenced by relevant statutes, case law, and legal principles.

The Government of India Act, 1858 does not explicitly mention the doctrine of sovereign immunity. However, it represents a significant historical development that had an impact on the concept of sovereign immunity in India.

Although the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not explicitly enshrined in the Government of India Act, 1858, its underlying principles were inherent in the legal framework established during that time. This legal framework set the stage for subsequent developments and recognition of sovereign immunity in India through laws, judicial interpretations, and the State Immunity Act, 1972.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The jurisdiction of the court concerning the doctrine of sovereign immunity varies based on the nature of the claim and the identity of the parties involved. Generally, claims against the central government are within the jurisdiction of the high court or the supreme court, while claims against state governments are within the jurisdiction of the respective state high courts.

The jurisdiction of the court in the context of sovereign immunity varies based on the nature of the claim and the identity of the parties involved. Generally, claims against the government are within the jurisdiction of the high court or the supreme court of the respective jurisdiction.

In India, the jurisdiction of the court concerning sovereign immunity can be understood by considering the following points:

1. Central Government: Claims against the Central Government of India, including its departments and agencies, are generally within the jurisdiction of the high court of the respective state where the cause of action arises. The high court has original jurisdiction in such matters.

2. State Governments: Claims against state governments, their departments, and agencies, fall within the jurisdiction of the respective state high court. The high court has original jurisdiction to hear cases involving the state government, unless the jurisdiction is specially conferred upon any other court by law.

3. Lower Courts: Claims against the government or its agencies, which involve relatively smaller amounts or specific subjects, may fall within the jurisdiction of lower courts. The specific jurisdictional limits of lower courts are determined by the relevant laws and regulations applicable in a particular state.

It is important to note that the jurisdiction of the court also depends on the specific laws governing the subject matter of the claim. For example, if a claim pertains to a contractual dispute with the government, it may be governed by specific contract-related laws and the court’s jurisdiction can also be influenced by such laws.

Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court can also be impacted by the consent given by the government to be sued. In cases where the government consents to be sued, the court may have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The concept of sovereign immunity has its roots in ancient civilizations and can be traced back to various historical periods across the world. Here is a brief historical background of sovereign immunity:

Ancient Greece and Rome: The origins of sovereign immunity can be found in ancient Greek and Roman legal systems. In these societies, the idea of immunity was associated with the king or ruler. The concept of “rex non potest peccare” (the king can do no wrong) reflected the belief that the ruler should be immune from legal liability for their acts. This principle provided a form of protection to the ruler and the state.

Medieval Europe: The development of sovereign immunity continued during the Middle Ages. In feudal societies, the monarch was regarded as the embodiment of the state and held absolute power. This gave rise to the principle that the king or ruler cannot be held accountable for their actions in the same way as ordinary individuals.

British Common Law: The doctrine of sovereign immunity was further developed under British common law. In England, the principle of Crown immunity emerged, providing the King and the government with immunity from legal actions without their consent. This principle was based on the belief in the indivisibility of the state and the notion that the King could do no wrong.

In India, the concept of sovereign immunity was inherited from British common law principles and was further regulated through legislation like the State Immunity Act, 1972. This Act provided the legal framework for the immunity of sovereign states from the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

Pre-Independence Era

The doctrine of sovereign immunity in the pre-independence era of India was influenced by British colonial rule and the principles of British common law.

During British colonial rule, the concept of sovereign immunity was recognized and applied in India. As per the principles of British common law, foreign sovereigns and their property were granted immunity from the jurisdiction of Indian courts. This immunity essentially protected foreign states from lawsuits and legal actions in Indian territory.

The principle of sovereign immunity meant that a foreign sovereign could not be sued or held accountable in Indian courts without its consent. This principle was based on the idea that sovereign states should be treated as equals and should not be subject to the jurisdiction of other states’ courts.

Foreign embassies and diplomatic missions also enjoyed immunity from civil and criminal proceedings under the principles of diplomatic immunity, which is closely related to the concept of sovereign immunity.

In this pre-independence era, the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India was primarily derived from British common law principles and was applied as part of the colonial legal and administrative framework.

However, it is important to note that the pre-independence era also witnessed certain limitations and challenges to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Local laws and regulations could sometimes affect the extent of immunity granted to foreign sovereigns.

Since India gained independence in 1947, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has developed further through legislative enactments, judicial interpretation, and international agreements. The State Immunity Act, 1972, discussed earlier, is a significant legislation in independent India that specifically addresses the provisions and exceptions related to sovereign immunity.

Post- Independence Era

The doctrine of sovereign immunity in India post-independence has evolved through statutory provisions, legal precedents, and international agreements. Let’s explore the key aspects of its development in the post-independence era:

1. State Immunity Act, 1972: The State Immunity Act, 1972, was enacted by the Parliament of India to specifically address the principles of sovereign immunity and its exceptions. This legislation provides guidelines on when a foreign state may claim immunity from the jurisdiction of Indian courts and sets out the exceptions when a foreign state can be subject to legal proceedings in India.

2. Judicial Interpretation: Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the doctrine of sovereign immunity post-independence. The Supreme Court of India, as the highest judicial authority, has consistently recognized the principles of sovereign immunity as part of customary international law. The court has upheld the immunity of foreign states unless exceptions provided under the State Immunity Act, 1972, apply.

3. Commercial Activities: Indian courts have recognized certain exceptions to sovereign immunity in cases involving commercial activities. The principle of restrictive immunity has been applied, allowing individuals or entities to seek legal remedies against foreign states in commercial transaction disputes.

4. International Agreements and Treaties: India has become a party to various international agreements and treaties that have implications for sovereign immunity. For example, India is a member of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which provides a framework for state immunity. The principles and provisions of these international agreements may influence the interpretation and application of sovereign immunity in India.

5. Waiver of Immunity: Post-independence, the doctrine of sovereign immunity also recognizes the concept of waiver. A foreign state may explicitly waive its immunity, either through written agreements or by participating in legal proceedings voluntarily.

It is important to note that the doctrine of sovereign immunity continues to evolve in the post-independence era. Factors such as legislative developments, international practice, and changing interpretations by the courts may impact how sovereign immunity is applied in India. Consulting with legal experts well-versed in Indian law and international law is essential to navigate the complexities of sovereign immunity in the post-independence era.

TYPES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Sovereign immunity refers to the legal doctrine that grants immunity to the government from being sued without its consent. This principle is based on the concept that the government, as a sovereign entity, should be protected from legal actions that might interfere with its operations, finances, or policies. However, there are various types of sovereign immunity, and exceptions to this doctrine, which provide opportunities for individuals and entities to bring lawsuits against the government.

1. Absolute Immunity: Under absolute immunity, the government is entirely immune from any legal suit or liability. This type of immunity is commonly applied to acts performed by government officials while carrying out their official duties. Absolute immunity is based on the principle that the government should be protected from undue interference in its functions. However, it is important to note that absolute immunity is subject to certain exceptions.

2. Restricted Immunity: Restricted immunity is a form of limited immunity that allows the government to be sued in certain circumstances. It applies when the government engages in commercial or proprietary activities that are not considered to be within the scope of its sovereign functions. In such cases, individuals or entities may bring legal action against the government, just as they would against a private party.

EXCEPTIONS TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Contractual Waiver: Sovereign immunity can be waived by the government through a contractual agreement. If the government enters into a contract that includes a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, it can be held liable for any breach of that contract.
Tort Claims: The government may waive its sovereign immunity in cases of tort claims, which involve personal injury or property damage caused by the negligence or wrongful acts of government officials or employees. However, the specific rules and procedures for filing a tort claim against the government may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
Statutory Exceptions: Certain laws or statutes may provide exceptions to sovereign immunity. For example, in India, the government can be sued for acts or omissions under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Similarly, the government can be held liable for violation of fundamental rights under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

In India, the judicial interpretation of sovereign immunity has evolved through various landmark judgments. Here are a few notable judgments that have contributed to the interpretation of sovereign immunity in India:

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962): Viewing the case from the point of view of first principles, there should be no difficulty in holding that the State should be as much liable for tort in respect of a tortious act committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and functioning as such as any other employer. The immunity of the Crown in the United Kingdom, was based on the old feudalistic notions of Justice, namely, that the King was incapable of doing a wrong, and, therefore, of authorising or instigating one, and that he could not be sued in his own courts. In India, ever since the time of the East India Company, the soversign has been held liable to be sued in tort or in contract, and the Common Law immunity never operated in India. Now that we have, by our Constitution, established a Republican form of Government, and one of the objectives is to establish a Socialistic State with its varied industrial and other activities, employing a large army of servants, there is no justification, in principle, or in public interest, that the State should not be held liable vicariously for the tortious act of its servant.^{^[7]}

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the state cannot claim immunity from liability for acts committed by its employees under tortious liability. The court stated that the principle of sovereign immunity cannot be used as a shield to protect the state from its obligations arising out of negligence.

Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

The doctrine of immunity which has been borrowed in India in dealing with the question of the immunity of the State in regard to claims made against it for tortious acts committed by its servants, was really based on the Common Law principle which prevailed in England; and that principle has now been substantially modified by the Crown Proceedings Act. In dealing with the present appeal, we have ourselves been disturbed by the thought that a citizen (1) Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. II, p. 8. Whose property was seized by process of law, has to be told when he seeks a remedy in a court of law on the ground that his property has not been returned to him, that be can make no claim against the State. That, we think, is not a very satisfactory position in law. The remedy to cure this position, however, lies in the bands of the Legislature. The result is, the appeal fails, but in the circumstances of this case, we direct that the parties should bear their own costs throughout.^{^[8]}

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be extended to protect the government or its officials from their illegal or tortious acts. The court observed that the state cannot claim immunity when it acts in a private or non-governmental capacity like any other ordinary citizen. It further stated that if the government or its officers are engaged in commercial or business activities, they would be liable for their actions and accountable to the same extent as any private individual or entity.

These landmark judgments showcase the evolving stance of the Indian judiciary on sovereign immunity. While the principle of sovereign immunity is acknowledged, the courts have also emphasized that the government cannot misuse it to evade liability or bypass accountability. It is important to note that the interpretation of sovereign immunity may continue to evolve based on future judgments and developments in Indian jurisprudence.

CRITICISMS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

While sovereign immunity serves important purposes, it has also faced certain criticisms:

1. Lack of Accountability: One criticism is that sovereign immunity can shield governments from accountability for their actions. Immunity may prevent individuals or entities from seeking redress for harms caused by the government, particularly in cases involving human rights abuses or wrongdoing.

2. Unequal Treatment: Critics argue that sovereign immunity creates an unequal playing field between the government and private individuals or entities. The government may have greater resources and legal power, making it difficult for individuals to secure justice or compensation.

3. Inconsistencies in Application: Sovereign immunity laws and their exceptions can vary across jurisdictions, leading to inconsistencies in the application of the principle. This lack of uniformity can create uncertainty and difficulties for individuals seeking legal remedies.

Recent Developments:

In recent years, there have been some noteworthy developments regarding sovereign immunity:

Human Rights Considerations: Courts have increasingly recognized the significance of human rights and international law in evaluating sovereign immunity claims. Human rights treaties and principles are being invoked by courts to interpret and restrict the application of sovereign immunity, particularly in cases involving human rights violations.
Commercial Activities: Many jurisdictions have limited the scope of sovereign immunity by distinguishing between acts of a governmental nature and commercial activities. State entities engaging in commercial or business-like activities are often held to the same standards as private entities and may not enjoy immunity in such cases.
Waiver of Immunity: There is a growing trend towards states voluntarily waiving their immunity in specific circumstances. States may enter into contracts, treaties, or other agreements containing explicit waivers of immunity, allowing individuals or entities to pursue legal actions against the state.
State Practice: Some states have enacted legislation or issued guidelines that clarify the scope of sovereign immunity and provide exceptions in specific areas. These developments aim to strike a balance between protecting sovereign interests and ensuring accountability and access to justice.

CONLUSION

Sovereign immunity, which originated in court decisions as a common-law doctrine, has historically been justified based on the belief that the King or the State could do no wrong. However, these justifications are no longer valid or applicable today. The doctrine of sovereign immunity, particularly in relation to tort liability, perpetuates injustice by denying recovery for tortious conduct solely based on the status of the wrongdoer. This contradicts the essence of tort law, which holds that liability follows negligence and that individuals and corporations are responsible for the actions of their agents and employees acting within the scope of their employment. In modern society, the concept of sovereign immunity is outdated and no longer warranted. Our society is built on the principles of welfare and trust for the common man, and the modern state is not simply a police state but rather a social-welfare state. As such, it has a duty to take care of its citizens throughout their lives, especially given that the state is chosen and voted into power based on the expectation of reciprocal consideration. Therefore, it is increasingly recognized that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is antiquated and inapplicable in today’s world. The principles of justice and accountability demand that the state, like any other entity or individual, should be held liable for its negligent actions. This recognition aligns with the evolving values of our society and the understanding that no one should be above the law or shielded from the consequences of their actions, regardless of their status. In conclusion, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been deemed outdated and no longer suitable in modern society, where fairness, justice, and accountability are paramount. The principles of tort law, negligence, and responsibility should apply equally to all, including the state, to promote a just and equitable society.

^[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1960/1/A1991-06.pdf

^[2] ibid

^[3] https://www.lawdadi.in/cpc/79-cpc-suits-by-or-against-government-section-79-code-of-civil-procedure.html

^[4] Article 300, Constitution of India

^[5] Article 361, Constitution of India

^[6] Article 294, Constitution of India

^[7] State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) available on

https://www.scconline.com/Members/BrowseResult.aspx last see on 06/08/23.

^[8] Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh available on

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199558/ last seen on 06/08/23.