Assignment 1

(Assignment towards the fulfilment of the Continuous Assessment in the

subject of Legal Methods and Legal Systems)

SUBMITTED BY:
TO:

SUBMITTED

HARSH SALGIA

MS .TITASHA

BANERJEE

B.B.A L.L.B (HONS.)

FACULTY OF

LAW
SEMESTER 1
LAW UNIVERSITY

NATIONAL

SECTION A

JODHPUR

ROLL NO:

1271

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

Facts

State of A.P has taken up the Operation Storm and has appointed special police in order to
tackle the Naxalites, an organization which is ought to be declared unconstitutional by the state.
In the course of operation the special police appointed by the state started looting houses in the
villages in which they were deployed to comb out Naxalites under Operation Storm

Issues
1. Whether the state of A.P is vicariously liable for the act of special police or not?

Analysis

Public law (lat. ius publicum) is that part of law which governs relationships between individuals
and the government, and those relationships between individuals which are of direct concern to
the society. Public law comprises constitutional law, administrative law, tax law and criminal
law, as well as all procedural law. In public law, mandatory rules prevail. Laws concerning
relationships between individuals belong to private law.
The law applicable in the problem is public law as the problem deals with the relationship
between state and individuals. Under the heading of public law, constitutional law will apply in
the present case. Article 300(1) of Indian Constitution regarding the vicarious liability of state is
applicable.

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a

previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when
deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great
value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield
similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that
goal is attained. In the case of Kasturi lal v. State of U.P 1. It was stated that any action of state
which is under the heading of sovereign function, state cannot be held liable.
Liability of state under article 300(1) depends whether the action being undertaken is sovereign
or non-sovereign. Sovereign functions are those functions which can be undertaken only by the
Government and parallel work is not be done by a private entity. Examples include Army, Police,
Railways etc. In the present case the action of State of A.P falls under the head of sovereign
functions as deploying special police in order to fight Naxalites is an action which can be taken
by state only and not by any private individual. And the action of police that is looting the houses
in the village has been done during discharging the sovereign function of state. So state of A.P is
not vicariously liable for the act of special police as it is the sovereign function of the state.

Conclusion
The power to appoint special police for a specific purpose, is the power conferred on the
specified officers by statute and they are powers which can be properly categorized as sovereign
powers. Hence the basis of the judgment in above case was two-fold The act was done in the
purported exercise of a statutory power. Secondly, the act was done in the exercise of a sovereign
function.
1 Kasturi lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 1039.

As the act is under the heading of sovereign function of state, the state of A.P is not liable. For
the state to be liable there should be clear demarcation between the sovereign and non sovereign act. The concerned body performing the act as well as the act both should be
sovereign.