Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant: Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain

Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh

Date of Judgement: 29th September, 1964.

Bench:

• Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj);
• Wanchoo, K.N.;
• Hidayatullah, M.;
• Dayal, Raghubar;
• Mudholkar, J.R.

Facts of the Case:

On September 20, 1947, Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain, a partner in a registered company in Amritsar that deals in bullion and other goods, traveled to Meerut to sell gold, silver, and other goods at the Meerut market.  Three policemen detained and arrested him while he was carrying his goods through the market.

At the Kotwali police station, the police arrested him, seized his belongings, including gold and silver, and placed them under arrest.  When he was released, just the silver was given back to him; the gold was nowhere to be seen.  In order to recover his gold or its monetary value, Kasturi Lal filed a lawsuit against the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Facts in Detail:

1. One of the partners in the appellant’s Amritsar-based jewelry sales business was Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain. When Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain got to Meerut, he had plans to exchange silver and gold.
2. Three police officers detained him on suspicion of having stolen property.
3. Silver costing two maunds and six and a half seers, as well as gold weighing 103 tolas, six mashas, and one ratti, were among the items taken from him and kept in a police station.
4. After being released on bail a few days later, on September 21, 1947, Kasturi Lal was eventually given only the silver—not the gold—that the police had confiscated from the maalkhana.
5. After that, Ralia Ram made a lot of demands and pleas for the return of the money that had been taken from him, but the police officers refused to give him the gold.
6. When he was unable to retrieve the riches, he sued the respondent and demanded that the items that had been taken from him be given back to him or replaced.
7. It should be directed to pay him interest on its value.
8. He claimed the gold price of Rs. 11,075 plus Rs. 335 in interest for damages and future interest.
9. The respondent rejected the claim, arguing that they were under no duty to restore the gold or pay interest on its value.
10. The respondent claimed that Mohammad Aamir, the chief constable of the malkhana he was in charge of, left for Pakistan on October 17, 1947, carrying stolen gold and other funds.
11. Despite their best efforts, police were unable to take any significant action against Mohammed Amir. As a result, the respondent insisted that they were not guilty.

Legal Issue

1. Were the police personnel in question negligent in terms of properly caring for the gold confiscated from Ralia Ram?
2. Was the respondent responsible for compensating the applicant for the damage caused by the carelessness of state-employed public servants?
3. Can the tort of carelessness committed by a public worker while performing his statutory role be classified as sovereign powers and held liable?

Vicarious Liability:

Respondent superior refers to a superior’s accountability for the conduct of a subordinate or any other third party that has the “right, ability, or duty to control” the violator’s activities under the common law doctrine of agency. Respondent  It was caused by the superior meaning, “Let the master answer.”  The respondent superior doctrine, sometimes referred to as the “scope of employment,” holds employers vicariously liable for the careless acts or inactions of their employees while they are on the job. Even if an act is performed incorrectly, it must be authorized or related to an authorized act in order to be considered to have occurred during the course of employment.

Until recent cases, Salmond’s Law of Torts stated that a wrongful act is considered in the course of employment if it is either

(1) authorised by the master or;

(2) an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act.

The Latin legal expression “qui facit per alium facit per se” translates to “He who acts through another does the act himself.” It is a key principle of the law of agency. This aphorism is commonly used when addressing an employer’s culpability for employee actions.

What are sovereign functions and non-sovereign functions?

A sovereign function is one that can only be carried out by the government using its legally granted sovereign powers.  Army operations and police powers under the Police Act are two examples.  Non-sovereign functions also include those carried out by private businesses.

Sovereign Immunity

The sovereign or state is shielded from legal action, including civil and criminal actions, by sovereign immunity, also referred to as royal immunity.  The king, who has historical authority, creates the courts in constitutional monarchy.  The courts did not have the power to bind the royals; they were created to protect the subjects of the sovereign.

Lawsuits seeking monetary damages against non-consenting sovereigns, such as states, tribes, foreign countries, and the federal government, are prohibited by the concepts of sovereign immunity.

Precedents

Peacock C.J.’s ruling in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India established the notion of Sovereign Immunity in India.  The East India Company’s liability for torts committed by its servants was assessed in the case using the phrases “sovereign” and “non-sovereign.”  The Supreme Court of Calcutta was the first to interpret the Government of India Act, 1858.  In order to establish vicarious liability, C.J. Peacock categorized the East India Company’s operations as either “sovereign” or “non-sovereign.” On a road, a servant of the plaintiff corporation was operating a vehicle drawn by two horses.  Government workers’ negligence resulted in the injury of a horse in the plaintiff’s carriage.  The state secretary became liable after the East India Company was held responsible for an accident brought on by the negligence of its employees while engaging in non-sovereign activities.  Being a non-sovereign entity, the East India Company was unable to take advantage of all sovereign exemptions.  Additionally, since they were not public employees, they were exempt from the liability principle.  However, the state was held accountable because it was a business with delegated sovereign powers.

The Madras High Court held in Hari Bhan Ji v. Secretary of State that the East India Company’s immunity was limited to “acts of state” and that the line separating sovereign from non-sovereign functions was ill-founded.  Two competing opinions were raised in the courts by this ruling.  The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is not made explicit in the cases.

Contentions Raised

Arguments from the Appellant Side

• The plaintiff argued that the State of Uttar Pradesh should compensate M/s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain for the injury caused by police personnel’ carelessness.

Arguments from the Respondent Side

• The respondent maintained that the matter was about property abuse, not carelessness. The reply argued that even if the police officer’s carelessness was shown, the State would not be held accountable for any crimes committed by its employees.

Judgment

In Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers who handled items that were acquired from Ralia Ram were considered careless even though they were acting within their official bounds.  They made use of their legitimate sovereign rights, which included the power to make arrests, conduct searches, and seize property.  Although the officials were obviously government employees, the essence of sovereignty gave them a special standing.

In this case, the actions that led to the damages claim were taken by a government employee while they were employed.  But part of their role was to exercise sovereign authority.  Because actions taken by sovereign authority are exempt from claims for damages, this distinction is crucial.

This legal position is based on Chief Justice Peacock’s 1861 ruling, which established that claims against the government cannot be sustained in such situations. As a result, based on this understanding and history, the current claim for damages cannot be upheld, because the police officers’ acts, however irresponsible, were carried out as part of their profession, using sovereign rights granted by legislation.

Critical Analysis

The Supreme Court tackled the question of the State’s responsibility in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh.  In this case, the arguments were (i) whether the police officers handled the gold that was taken from Kasturi Lal carelessly and (ii) whether the state had to compensate Kasturi Lal for the harm that the state employee had caused.

According to Gajendragadkar C.J., police officers handled confiscated commodities carelessly despite acting within their statutory authority, upholding the State of U.P.’s immunity defense.  Legislation grants the power to arrest and detain, which is regarded as sovereign.

As a result, the assertion is unsupportable. Applying the precedent set in the P.S.O. Steam Navigation case, which distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign state actions, the Supreme Court concluded in this case that abuse of police power constituted a sovereign act for which the state is not liable. The scope of Vidyawati’s complaint was restricted to tortuous responsibility brought on by the use of sovereign power. Prominent constitutional experts have criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Kasturilal’s case.  The article ignores how laws have changed recently, such as the removal of state immunity in the nation where it was first published.  The Supreme Court’s decision in this case hasn’t been overturned yet, but later rulings have greatly diminished its authority and aren’t often cited as precedents.

Courts in later years construed the State’s immunity liberally and declared many tasks to be non-sovereign.  The Supreme Court created a new remedy of awarding damages through writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in order to safeguard people’s personal liberty against abuses of state power.  For the first time, the Supreme Court awarded damages in the writ suit in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar.  The idea developed in Rudal Shah was extended to cover cases of unlawful detention in Bhim Singh v. State of Rajasthan.  In a case under Article 32, the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 50,000 as restitution for unlawful arrest and incarceration. Due to the lack of a clear definition of “sovereign functions,” it is necessary to interpret the phrase in accordance with other laws. The definition of “sovereign function” has been debated, with several explanations proposed.

Conclusion

A common-law theory that emerged in court decisions is sovereign immunity.  Sovereign immunity has historically been defended on the grounds that the King could not do wrong, that the State could carry out its functions more effectively and efficiently without fear of tort liability, that it was better for an individual to suffer than for society to be inconvenienced, and that diverting funds for other governmental purposes could bankrupt the State and impede its growth.

In the modern world, the basic justifications for sovereign immunity are no longer relevant.  immunity from tort liability due to sovereignty.  By prohibiting compensation for tortious behavior based only on the position of the wrongdoer, it upholds injustice.

The basic tenet of tort law—that liability follows carelessness and that individuals and businesses are accountable for the negligence of their agents and employees acting in the course of their employment—is violated by sovereign immunity.  to conclude that the sovereign immunity of the State from tort liability is no longer required and is outdated.  The repeal of the State’s sovereign immunity from tort responsibility should be done prospectively so that the Legislature can prepare in advance by establishing self-insurance funds or acquiring liability insurance.  As a result, there is now a “fundamental right to compensation” for crimes committed by public servants.  More areas where people wish to exercise their rights should be covered by this judicial innovation.