KASTURILAL vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (1965)
AIR 1039, SCR (1) 375
Facts
Kasturilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) is a landmark case dealing with sovereign immunity in India.
Kasturilal, a gold merchant from Punjab, was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police on suspicion of possessing stolen gold. While in custody, the police confiscated his gold but later failed to return it, as one of the officers had misappropriated it.
Kasturilal sued the State of Uttar Pradesh, claiming compensation for the lost gold due to the negligence of the police. However, the state argued that police actions fall under sovereign functions and that the government could not be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers while performing official duties.
Issues
1. Whether the state is liable for wrongful acts (misappropriation) committed by its employees in their official capacity.
2. Whether the principle of sovereign immunity applies to police misconduct.
3. Whether Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the government to be sued, overrides sovereign immunity.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that the police were performing a sovereign function and, therefore, the government could not be held liable for their actions. The key points of the ruling were:
● Sovereign functions (such as policing, law enforcement, and military actions) enjoy immunity from lawsuits.
● The state cannot be sued for negligent acts of its employees if the act was performed in a sovereign capacity.
● The wrongful act of an individual officer does not automatically make the state liable.
This judgment established the doctrine of sovereign immunity, protecting the government from lawsuits related to policing, defense, and law enforcement activities.
Contemporary Relevance
This case has been criticized for shielding government agencies from accountability, especially in cases of police misconduct and human rights violations. However, in later cases like Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court limited the scope of sovereign immunity by ruling that fundamental rights violations do not enjoy immunity.
Today, the ruling is still cited in cases involving police negligence, administrative errors, and state liability, but courts increasingly favor holding the government accountable in human rights cases.
-SAKSHI
DNLU
Comments