Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts

Statutory authority refers to the legal power derived directly from the legislature. When someone acts under statutory authority and causes harm to another, no legal action can be taken against them, as the act is not considered a tort. Even if, under normal circumstances, such an act would be tortious, the presence of statutory authority exempts it from being classified as a tort. In cases where the law provides for compensation, the injured party may receive it, but otherwise, no liability arises. Statutory authority empowers the state and its agents to act for the public good, and any harm caused in the course of such actions is immune from liability.

This concept is rooted in the legal maxim "Rex Non Potest Peccare" (the king can do no wrong), which is the basis of sovereign immunity. Historically, this principle protected the king from any legal liability, a practice originating in England. The doctrine of sovereign immunity absolves the state from tortious liability for actions taken by its representatives on behalf of the state.

• Sovereign immunity serves as a justification for wrongs committed by the state or its agents, grounded in public policy considerations. In India, the courts have grappled with the application of this doctrine, balancing it with constitutional principles.
• Before independence, during British rule, the concept of sovereign immunity was used to protect the actions of the British administration.

In the landmark case of O. and P. Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India (1893), Chief Justice Peacock distinguished between the "sovereign" and "non-sovereign" functions of the East India Company, determining the company's vicarious liability for torts committed by its servants. Following this, the courts debated the extent of the East India Company's immunity, with significant rulings such as Hari Bhanji v. Secretary of State, where the Madras High Court limited the company's immunity to "acts of state" and called for a clear distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.

After independence, a notable case was State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, where a government servant negligently drove a vehicle and injured a pedestrian. The court rejected the state's claim of sovereign immunity and held it liable to compensate the victim.

In contrast, in Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court took a different stance, upholding the state's sovereign immunity in a case involving police misconduct. The court's reliance on the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions led to confusion and criticism.

The challenge of distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is complex. In Vidyawati's case, the court emphasized that the state cannot arbitrarily exercise its power under the guise of sovereign immunity. The conflicting rulings in Kasturi Lal and subsequent cases highlighted the need for legislative clarification. The judiciary eventually concluded that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is unsatisfactory, and only the legislature can define and limit the state's powers to ensure they are used solely for public welfare.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, the court held that the maxim "the king can do no wrong" or "the crown is not answerable to the people" is not applicable in modern India.

Therefore, the defense of statutory authority cannot override fundamental rights. The state cannot use statutory authority to infringe upon these rights. Aggrieved individuals can seek redress for tortious acts committed by the state in trial courts without needing to approach higher courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court's observations in later cases, while diminishing the relevance of Kasturi Lal, did not fully address situations where non-fundamental rights are violated. To definitively resolve this issue, a constitutional bench with seven or more judges may be required to reconsider and potentially overrule Kasturi Lal.