9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing the suit. 2. Immunity of the State from legal action for sovereign acts. 3. Negligence of State officers leading to custodial death. Summary: Issue 1: Limitation Period for Filing the Suit The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the suit was barred by limitation u/s Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a one-year period. The respondents argued that Article 113, which provides a three-year period, should apply as it is the residuary Article. The Supreme Court held that Article 72 applies only when the act or omission is in pursuance of statutory authority. In this case, the negligence was not in pursuance of any statutory duty but was mala fide. Therefore, the High Court rightly applied Article 113, making the suit within the limitation period. Issue 2: Immunity of the State from Legal Action for Sovereign Acts The trial court dismissed the suit based on the sovereign immunity doctrine, citing Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain vs. State of U.P. The High Court, however, decreed the suit considering Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the theory of sovereign immunity does not apply to violations of Fundamental Rights, including custodial deaths. The State cannot claim immunity for negligent acts of its officers that violate constitutional rights. Issue 3: Negligence of State Officers Leading to Custodial Death The High Court found that the police failed to provide adequate security despite specific requests from the deceased and his son, who apprehended danger to their lives. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the negligence was gross and mala fide, as the Sub-Inspector of Police was part of the conspiracy. The failure to perform statutory duties under Rule 48 of the Madras Prison Rules was evident, and the State was held liable for the officers' negligence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that awarded damages to the respondents. The Court emphasized that the State cannot invoke sovereign immunity to escape liability for violations of Fundamental Rights and gross negligence by its officers.
|
