INTRODUCTION

POSITION IN ENGLAND
POSITION IN INDIA
CASE LAWS BEFORE INDEPENDENCE
AFTER INDEPENDENCE
NO DISTINCTION BET SOVEREIGN AND NON
SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS
CONCLUSION
 At Common law no action could lie against
the head of the department or other superior
officials for the acts of their subordinates for
the between them was not of master and
servant but fellow servant.
The individual wrong doer was personally
liable he couldnt take the defence of the
orders of the crown or state necessarily.
The immunity of the crown from liability
didnt exempt the servant from liability. The
was that whereas an ordinary master was
vicariously liable for the wrongs done by his
servant the govt was not vicariously liable for
the tort committed by the servant
 The courts in various decision has criticized
the exemptions given to the king as it was
against the principles of equity, justice and
good conscience. Hence the British Parliament
has passed the Crown Proceeding Act
abolishing the legal maxim King can do no
wrong. Now the crown can be sued for the
tortious act committed by his servant in the
course of employment under the principle
respondent superior.
 The provision was also reproduced in Sec 176(i)
of the Government of India Act 1935
Sec 65 of Govt of India Act 1858.
This very provision is incorporated in the Indian
Constitution. Article 300 of Indian Constitution
says (1) The Government 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
 Art 300 provides that the Union of India and
the States are juristic persons
CASE LAWS
1.Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Company VS Secretary of State for India-
A distinction was drawn between sovereign and
Non sovereign function .It was held that if the
act was done in exercise of sovereign functions
the east India company wont be liable. But if
the function is non sovereign one the East India
company will be liable. Maintenance of the
dockyard was considered to be non-sovereign
function and hence the government was made
liable.
 NAGENDRA RAO $ CO VS STATE OF AP