What is a Constitutional Tort?
The responsibility that an individual bears for the actions of another is known as vicarious liability. It’s a common theme in master-servant partnerships. In general, a constitutional tort is a legal tool that allows the state to be held vicariously accountable over the actions of its agents.
Article 300 of the Indian Constitution embodies the concept of constitutional tort. It permits the Union and state governments to be sued as juristic persons capable of owning and acquiring property, entering into contracts, bringing legal actions etc.
Judicial Position
Various aspects of constitutional tort have been interpreted through case laws. Over the years, the jurisprudence around this concept has evolved and many gray areas have been clarifed. Let us discuss how the judiciary has treated the concept of constitutional tort.
Illegal Detention
In the case of Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar, a public interest litigation case brought to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition demanded Rudal Shah’s release and compensation for his illegal detention. Rudal Shah was arrested for the murder of his wife in 1953. In 1968, he was cleared of the charges. Since his acquittal, he spent 14 years in jail. The court ordered a settlement of Rupees 30,000 as compensation for his overdue stay in jail.
In this case, the doctrine of compensatory jurisprudence was developed for infringement of fundamental rights. That was the ¦rst time the Supreme Court ordered penalties for Fundamental Rights violations.
Custodial Death
In the case of Nilabathi Behera v. State of Orissa, the case concerned the custodial death of the petitioner’s son, Suman Behera. During his detention, the individual received injuries that resulted in his death, and he was then tossed onto a railway track.
This is often regarded as an instance of human rights violation. The Supreme Court ordered the state to compensate the complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000.
Further, in several instances, the courts have referred to and pointed how no individual can escape liability under the umbrella of sovereign immunity. This was especially noted in light of human rights violations caused by Police o¨cers, state instrumentalities and the state at large.
Grant of Exemplary damages for state liability
The wife of the deceased, who was shot dead by Ri§es men when he failed to stop the jeep at a check point, had approached the Guwahati High Court seeking an appropriate redressal.
In another instance of deferred payment of pension amount, despite the fact that the court granted a mandamus ordering the state to pay the pension after a 12-year term, the complainant did not receive his pension from the state.
All these instances re§ect abuse of state powers and reassures faith in the redressal mechanism by way of granting damages to individuals, benefciaries and those afflicted by state’s neglect. In the former case, the court ordered the state to pay Rupees 1,50,0000 and in the latter, exceptional damages of Rs. 25,000.
Sovereign state duty & constitutional tort
In certain cases, liability derives from an act of commission or negligence, and the scope of the liability is determined by the statute in effect at the time of completion. But for the application of sovereign duty, when the act or omission is done by a government servant or with a color of office, the State will be held liable.
Public Nuisance and State Accountability
The maxim ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ or where there is a wrong there is a remedy applies squarely to the concept of constitutional tort. Our Fundamental Rights, especially Article 32 has entitled individuals to ¦le cases pertaining to compensation against government officials.
Claim For and Calculation of Damages Under Constitutional Tort
In several cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the State was held liable for activities by public workers that violated fundamental rights including public workers’ tortious behaviour. In such cases, the proper recourse was to ¦le a petition under Article 32 or Article 226. Thus, vicarious liability of the State can arise under these statutes for tortious acts or omissions of its employees in the course of their employment.