Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rule established
State NOT liable for torts committed in exercise of sovereign functions (police custody of seized property); sovereign immunity survives for core governmental acts.
Facts
- Kasturi Lal was arrested by police; his gold (worth Rs.2 lakhs) was seized during search
- Head Constable in charge of the malkhana (property room) absconded with the gold
- Kasturi Lal was acquitted; demanded return of gold
- Police could not return gold (stolen by their own employee)
- Kasturi Lal sued State for damages/compensation for loss of property
Issue
- Whether the State is liable when its servant (police constable) misappropriates property seized and held in official custody during criminal investigation.
Held
- Seizure and custody of property during criminal investigation is a "sovereign function"; an act that only government can perform (police power, maintenance of law and order)
- For sovereign functions, the State is NOT vicariously liable for torts of its servants
- Distinguished from Vidyawati: driving a vehicle is non-sovereign; police custody is sovereign
- Kasturi Lal left without remedy against the State (only personal action against the absconding constable)
- The sovereign/non-sovereign distinction from P&O Steam Navigation (1861) applied
Ratio Decidendi
When government exercises sovereign (inalienable, exclusively governmental) functions, defense, police, foreign affairs, administration of justice, it is not vicariously liable for torts committed by servants. Immunity shields the State from liability for its servants' wrongs in this domain.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Contrasting case to Vidyawati. Sovereign function = immunity; non-sovereign = liability.
- Part B: Show how Nagendra Rao (1994) narrowed Kasturi Lal significantly. Discuss the criticism: citizen loses gold due to government negligence but has no remedy. Rule of Law violated?
- Key line (criticism): "The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions has become thin and is increasingly criticized as leaving citizens without remedy for government wrongs."
Source
Source: AIR 1965 SC 1039; Massey, Administrative Law; Sathe, Administrative Law
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Law of TortsLiability of the State for Torts and Sovereign ImmunitySovereign immunity applied narrowly; widely criticized