Article 300 in The Constitution Of India 1949

-

Article 300 simply covers the Government of India and the government of a state with legal personality; they can now enter into contracts (Article 299), acquire, hold and dispose of property and carry out trade and business like ordinary individuals. This naturally brings them under the purview of "suits": the ability to sue or be sued for failure to duly conduct these functions or obligations.
300. Suits and proceedings
(1) The Governor of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union 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 CHAPTER IV RIGHT TO PROPERTY

The nature of exact functions for which the Government can be sued has been analyzed in a host of cases and difficult to express. Simply, the earlier view was that the government cannot be sued for sovereign functions (those which can only be performed by the government), but be liable for non-sovereign functions (those performed by an individual) [P. and O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India].

However, the doctrine got overruled in N. Nagendra Rao v. State of AP where the courts diluted this doctrine of sovereign-immunity if the State has been negligent in performing its functions due to which damages have resulted. Sovereignty not vests in the people. The ratio is applicable in equal measure to violations of fundamental rights [Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983 where the victim was put behind bars for 14 years even after his acquittal; the court directed a compensation of Rs. 35000].

To sue, in this context, does not mean to initiate proceedings with a view to put the "government" behind bars; it is simply meant to claim damages. Also, it must be borne in mind that the factum of a duty is crucial to such duties. A statutory duty of the government must be shown along with a failure thereof and proof of resultant damage.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

-
Introduction It is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as  Wednesbury   unreasonableness . The court gave three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in  Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1]  by Lord Diplock: So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Facts In 1947 Associated Provincial Picture Houses was granted a licence by the Wednesbury Corporation in Staffordshire to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15, whether accompanied by an adult or not, were admitted on Sundays. Under...
Read more

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT | Aims, Objective, Significance, Consumer Protection Council

-
INTRODUCTION The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and for the purpose to make provisions for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities in the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. It seeks, inter-alia, to promote and to protect the rights of consumers such as  protection against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property, the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices, the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices, the right to be heard and to be assured that the interest of consumers will receive due consideration at appropriate forums, the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers and right to consumer education. The object is al...
Read more

Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors 1974 SCR (1) 381 | LAW OF LIMITATION

-
INTRODUCTION & FACTS The Ps (A), filed an appeal in a suit for possession of land against the Ds The plaintiffs were the sons of Smt. Premi, a daughter of Sham Singh (Deceased), the original owner of the plots, and of Smt. Malan, who was the widow of Sham Singh, had gifted the plots in dispute in 1935, half and half, to the plaintiffs and Smt. Khemi, the younger sister of their deceased mother, Smt. Premi.  It appears that Smt. Khemi, who was issueless, had also made a gift in favour of the Plaintiffs before her death in 1944. The plaintiffs are, said to have obtained possession of the whole land in dispute thus gifted to them.' But, as there was considerable uncertainty at that time about the rights of the daughters and the powers of a widow to donate during her life time under the customary law in Punjab, which was applicable to the parties. Ds filed suit for possession of the land in dispute in 1940.  There was also a dispute over mutation of names betw...
Read more