Open Access Research Article
ANALYSING THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TREND IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
ANALYSING THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
TREND IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - VIJAY ANDHALE
LLM student 2024-25 at NLSIU, Bengaluru
Abstract:
This paper explores the doctrine of
sovereign immunity in India by examining its origins, evolution, and current
application in both domestic and international legal contexts. Sovereign
immunity, originally derived from absolutist notions of state power, has
undergone significant transformation, particularly in the democratic era, which
demands greater state accountability. The study highlights key judicial
developments in India that have progressively limited the scope of sovereign
immunity, distinguishing sovereign acts from commercial activities. It also
investigates the impact of constitutional provisions like Articles 298 and 300,
which facilitate state participation in trade while ensuring legal
accountability. Further, the paper delves into international arbitration and
the enforcement of arbitral awards, emphasizing India’s shift toward
restrictive immunity, fostering a conducive environment for trade and commerce.
By critically analysing the interplay between sovereign immunity, state
responsibility, and modern governance, this paper argues for a balanced
approach that upholds both state interests and individual rights, promoting
legal and economic equity.
Keyword: Sovereign immunity, State liability,
Government Contract
1.
Introduction:
The question of state responsibility
evokes a serious concern in any democratic society where state assumes a role
of Welfare state. The concept of welfare state requires the state to
participate actively and intensively in non-governmental activities such as
banking, transport, trade, infrastructure etc. but when it comes to attributing
the liability in case of any mishappening or non-performance, it may create a
chilling effect on such functions. In a country where rule of law is followed
every person is liable for any tort or offence committed against state or other
individual, on the same logic the state may also be dragged into litigation on
account of any wrong committed by state. This concept is called as state
liability. But in certain cases, the state
is not liable for acts or wrongs committed by it. In the context of India, A.
298 of the Constitution lays down that state can carry out any trade or
business in its executive power or it can hold dispose of a property or can
undertake contract for that purpose. Further A. 300 of the Constitution
envisages that the government can sue or be sued in its name provided certain
conditions are fulfilled. Certain provisions are also provided in other
domestic laws like S.79 of Civil Procedural Code, 1908. These provisions provide immunity to the
state so they can escape from the liability. These provisions act as defence
for state when the state is alleged to have been committed a wrong against
other individual. Similar provisions also exist in other states. One of such
protection available to state is sovereign immunity.
It can further be classified into two
categories
1. Sovereign immunity of state in
domestic law
2. Sovereign immunity of the state in
private international law
The concept of Sovereign immunity has
gone through drastic change in the recent times as an effect of various
judicial developments and changing notions of laws and governance and
particularly as an effect of growing national and international trade by government
owned entities. While this colonial tool was used to subjugate the populace,
the Indian courts considered it as discomfort and against the notion lawful
accountability. The courts often said that this doctrine is undemocratic and
has no place in democratic society but the doctrine still continues in the
vastly ambiguous form. The doctrine has no mention in constitution or any
domestic law and is purely a produce of judicial developments of common law.
The courts have been repeatedly challenged with a task of its interpretation
and effect owing to its vast ambiguous nature. In fact, the courts have tried
to distinguish between the sovereign and non-sovereign acts, to establish the
accountability of the state in such cases.
Thus, this paper undertakes to
analyse the application of sovereign immunity doctrine by examining legal
developments. The first chapter attempts to understand the origins of the
doctrine in both national and international context and its various
jurisprudential justifications while the second chapter focuses on its
evolution of the doctrine. It further gives an insight into the contractual
liability of the state when it undertakes commercial activities. In doing so
the author is attempts to argue that India by limiting or restricting the
concept of absolute sovereign immunity actually leading the development of both
domestic as well as international law to facilitate the trade and commerce.
2.
Origin
2.1 The Origins of the Doctrine in
domestic law:
The doctrine though initially inspired
by roman law under concepts of “The prince is not bound by the laws” and “the
prince has the force of law” owes its existence largely to English common law.
It believed to be grown in the reign of King Edward I. The doctrine is based on
the preposition that the king is sovereign and therefore he is not answerable
to his own courts, that he enjoys a superior power over his subjects without
any kind of scrutiny upon how he exercises such power. Early jurists like
Bodin, Austin, Hegal supported this absolutist concept of sovereignty and
advocated for absolute concentration of power in king, the monarch.[1]
Blackstone’s commentary “the law also ascribes to the king in his political
capacity absolute perfection. The king can do no wrong: ... "The king, moreover,
is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: he can never
mean to do an improper thing: in him is no folly or weakness.”[2]
also supports the equivalence of king as to of God and further extends the
immunity to all those who work under the royal seal or carries his orders. The
personal immunity granted to a king further extended to the crown as a result
of rise of notion of nation state.
The theory of sovereignty can be
broadly classified into two main schools, the absolutist and the
restrictionist. Initial jurists like Hubbes, Immanual Kant are the fiercest
proponents of absolutist view. They advocated that sovereign is incapable of
breaching the law as he himself is a source of law and that if he is subjected
to the compulsion, ‘there would no longer be a supreme head, and the series of
members subordinate and superordinate would go on upwards ad infinitum’[3]
Its growth could also be attributed to the quest for colonial expansion in the
19th century. This sovereign eventually started to control not just the law or
the policies but also the commercial matters in their controlled colonies. Any
dispute arising out of such matters was negated on the ground of sovereign
immunity of the crown. In these changing circumstances the questions related to
the absolutist theory started to emerge particularly in the instances where the
act was sovereign was brought before the courts. As a result, most courts
started to take a view of restrictionist approach by placing certain
restriction upon this absolute immunity to the acts of sovereign. The courts
differentiated the sovereign's ‘acta in jure imperii’ from it his ‘acta in jure
gestionis’, into which such trading activities fell.[4]
This ideas of restrictionist are
perhaps just a few centuries old, scholars like Grotius and John Lockie are the
proponents of this school of thought. Grotius believed that the sovereign’s
power are not free from limitation. Locke further claimed that sovereign is
also subjected to natural law and thus not free from limitations. He in fact
believed that king can do wrong in performance of his duties as a guardian of
state when he acts contrary to the natural law.[5]
Further the changing forms of the governance and the growth of democratic
states aggravated this view. The law makers and courts gradually realised that
absolutist form of sovereign immunity is no longer practical in the new world
order and thus its effects started to be diminished.[6]
2.2 The Origin of the doctrine in
Private International law:
As already stated, Bodin, Austin, and
Hegel are considered to be the early pioneers of sovereign immunity. Bodin’s
work in 16th century highlights his support to the absolutist view
of sovereign immunity. He wrote “It is the distinguished mark of the Sovereign
that he cannot in anyway be subject to the commands of another”.[7] Further in 19th century owing to
the quest of colonist expansion the idea of absolute sovereign immunity
strengthened an attitude against impleading a foreign sovereign before a local
court. Austin advocated that the sovereign’s power is indivisible and
illimitable.[8] Courts
in US and UK took a view that “Sovereigns have made an implied contract to
respect each other’s independence and dignity."[9]
The Historical origin of this rule
can be found in the era when most States were ruled by kings who in sense had
personified the state. In that period the one sovereign, if he tries to
exercise his power over another sovereign, was either indicative of superiority
of one over another or the hostility between the two equals and the peaceful
coexistence could only be achieved through the mutual respect of each other’s.
Thus, the absolutist view of sovereign immunity does not cause any practical
big problems until the sovereigns were largely occupied with the tasks of war
or conquest and the commercial activities was out of his operational domain.
This role of him changed in 19th century onwards where the sovereign
states started taking interest in trading activities. By the time of 1920 to
1930 the questions like whether this extended function of the state can be
challenged and can the sovereign state be made a party in foreign courts
started looming. The courts also started to enquiring about the notion of the
absolutist view which was developed in different circumstances was still a
reasonable one in these evolving situations particularly when the sovereign is
regularly appearing in the role of commercial entity.[10]
Some states thus took a restrictive
approach by limiting the immunity to the sovereign's acta in jure imperii, and
excluding from it his acta injure gestionis. Common was the late one to react
on this issue.[11] Lord
Atkin stated in the Cristina, “The courts of a country will not implead a
foreign sovereign. That is, they will not by their process make him against his
will a party to legal proceedings, whether the proceedings involve process
against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages and
that they will not by their process, whether the sovereign is a party to the
proceedings or not, seize or detain property which is his, or of which he is in
possession or control. There has been some difference in the practice of
nations as to possible limitations of the second principle, as to whether it
extends to the property used only for the commercial purposes of the sovereign
or to personal private property. In this country, it is, in my opinion, well
settled that it applies to both.”[12]
Thus, the Sovereign immunity doctrine
as a principle under Private International Law has been explained and justified
as resting on the grounds of Independence, Dignity, Extra-territoriality,
Comity and that of Diplomatic Functions of the sovereign state.
3.
Evolution
3.1 The evolution of the sovereign
immunity doctrine in Indian domestic law:
3.1.1 Under Tort Law:
The concept of Sovereign immunity
doctrine under common law was observed in colonial British India which then was
transported to the Independent India along with other concepts under common
law. The doctrine had immense value in colonial rule since the inception of
East India Company in India till mid of 19th century but with the
independence the influence of the doctrine started dwindling. Before the
independence of India, its origin could be found in Steam O navigation company
case[13],
Lord Chief Justice Peacock while interpreting S. 65 of GOI Act, 1935 actually
attempted to mild down the doctrine by differentiating between the sovereign
and non-sovereign functions and the extent up to which the company can made
vicariously liable for its employee’s torts. Following the reasoning the
construct of the military road was ruled to be a sovereign function in the case
Cockraft[14],
contrary to that madras high court took a opposite view an denied any
distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign function by ruling that “where
an act is done under the sanction of municipal law and in the exercise of
powers conferred by that law, the fact that it is done in the exercise of
sovereign function and is not an act which could possibly be done by a private
individual does not oust its justifiability”[15] .
Court in in Kishanchand case[16]
and Ross case[17]
followed the same logic.
After independence the courts and
legislature started to discuss the impact and relevance of this doctrine in the
backlight of constitution. The very first report of Law Commission of
Independent India highlighted the issue and backdrops of this doctrine against
the concept of justice and equity and recommended to struck it down in its
entirety. In the case of Vidyawati[18],
the court denied the plea for the act committed while discharging a sovereign
function by state. It held the clear vicarious liability of the state for the
tort committed by its official by holding that the function was not a state
sovereign function. The court highlighted that the new independent Indian state
is based upon the promise of welfare and socialistic goals where such feudal
notion of defence is not appreciable.
However, few years later court again took U-turn in the case of Kasturi
Lal[19]
by following the steam navigation ratio and thus by again redefining the
sovereign and non-sovereign functions held that the abusive use of police power
was a sovereign function and thus denied the liability of the state. Moreover,
court took the extreme approach by stating that there will be no liability of
the state for any torts committed by it or its servants in the exercise of its
statutory powers[20].
Finally, in the case of Nagendra
Rao[21] ,
the court brought some clarification in the law and upheld the Vidyavati
(supra) view by distinguishing it from Kasturilal (supra). The court
clarified that the defence will only be available in the cases of primary and
inalienable functions of the constitutional government such as justice
administration, law and order maintenance or repression of crime etc.
Thus, it can be well said that Indian
courts have taken a restricted view of sovereign immunity doctrine. At present,
trading activities and commercial activities like operating railways are out of
the scope of this doctrine.[22]
Similarly, relief works or government vehicle maintenance as well as running
hospitals were not considered as a sovereign function of the state. As held in Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha[23],
Nagpur Corporation[24],
it has been made clear that the protection of this doctrine will be limited to
the acts such as making laws, justice administration, law and order
maintenance, repressing crimes or war etc. The court further clarified that the
even though state is immune is some circumstances owing to this doctrine the
employees of the state who have committed torts are not protected[25]
and the public officer is not allowed to take this defence stating that wrong
was committed in discharge of official function or while working under the
orders of his superior.[26]
3.1.2
Under
Contract Law
Government Contracts
In the contemporary era state cannot
limit itself to just a traditional governmental function. The modern concept of
welfare state requires the state to participate actively and intensively in
non-governmental activities such as banking, transport, trade, infrastructure
etc.[27]
Thus, the state while conducting these activities much acts like a private
person. Large number of persons and businesses participates with the government
in the form of licences, government contracts, leases, mineral rights etc. The
quantum of government contracts has increased surprisingly in modern times
which mandates clear and unambiguous laws related fixing a liability in case of
breach. While the individual or business organisation who engages with
government is dealt with general rules of laws of contract, in case of breach
or a wrong committed on the side of government, will the same rules apply or
not is the question of importance.
It must be noted that if the blanket
protection is given to government to claim immunities from the liability
arising out of a breach or wrong committed by government side, it will create a
hostile environment for those who engages in these activities. Most of such
ventures cannot be performed by government alone owing to its financial,
expertise and personnel limitations. If these businesses and individuals do not
trust the government about honouring its contract, they will refrain from
undertaking such ventures which ultimately results into compromise of economic
and development of the country.
Contractual Liability of the
Government of India
A. 298 of the constitution of India
which is almost replication of earlier S.30 of 1915 Act and S.175 of 1935 Act
allows the Indian government to participate in the contract with any private
individual. It lays down the power of government to engage in any trade or
business or to acquire, hold or dispose of property and make contracts for any
purpose[28]
Further A.299 lays down certain requirements which has to be observed while
making such contracts by government. These are some mandatory requirements and
the breach of them will result into making a contract null and void.[29]
The case of Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria[30]
highlights that the purpose of A.299 is to act as a safeguard to the government
from unauthorised contracts and also to protect the larger public policy.
Governments liability in present
times regarding the contract is as same as the private individual. Even in the
British India, the East India Company was held liable for breaching the
contract which was entered by it in civil capacity ignoring its vested
sovereign powers. Though the person acting on behalf of the government cannot
be sued in his personal capacity as per A.299(2) the government itself can be
sued in the name of union or state as the case may be for any liability arising
out of such contract if the conditions of A.299(1) are duly fulfilled. This is
not a manifestation of doctrine sovereign immunity as it only protects those
who executes the contract on behalf of the state i.e. President, Governor of
the state official. This is a personal protection accorded to these officials
so they can perform their official function free from fear of any litigation or
personal liability arising out of an any contract made by them on behalf of the
government after fulfilling the mandate of A.299(1)[31].
It must be noted that despite the liability arising out of governmental or
non-governmental contracts is same, government do have some special privileges
under other statutes like the period of limitation. S.112 of LA, 1963 provides
a longer period of limitation for a suit by or on behalf of the government
which is 30 years as compared to 12 years for private individuals.[32]
Thus, broadly it can be concluded
that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the government in
the area of contracting. The government should be held accountable for
contracts to which it is a party. Providing any special privileges to the
government against the basic laws of contract will result in miscarriage of
justice and breach to the basic democratic notions of justice, equity and good
conscience. A. 300 of the Indian Constitution embodies that the State may be
sued by the individual in relation to its affairs, under the name of Union of
India, or it can itself sue others under the name of the State, in the like
case as the Dominion of India. Further it enables the Parliament.to make any
law in that regards.[33]
3.2 An International Law Perspective:
Jurisdictional sovereign immunity is
internationally recognised rule of common law which precludes the courts of one
state from exercising its jurisdiction over another sovereign state for
establishing any legal claim.[34]
As already discussed, as per the doctrine of sovereign immunity in
international law, a state cannot be tried for any wrong committed by it in the
foreign courts. This is based upon the concept that if a foreign court were
allowed to try a state for any legal claim, it would mean that one state is
superior to the other. This violates the concept sovereign equality. However,
with the changing circumstances in both national as well as international laws
the doctrine also undergoing a drastic change in its applicability. It is
widely believed that as the engagement of the states in the commercial
transaction is growing day by day, shielding themselves behind the absolute
view of sovereign immunity doctrine would be controversial to the views of justice
and equity. This led the international community towards the acceptance of
restrictive view of doctrine. The restrictive immunity approach states that
when any State undertakes commercial venture with a foreign individual, firm or
business entity, it is barred from taking the defence of sovereign immunity as
this does not results into any challenge, threat or loss of the dignity of the
State concerned and also nor it interferes with its sovereign functions.
India unlike UK or US,
does not have a comprehensive law dealing with the issue of jurisdictional
sovereign immunity of a foreign sovereign State. However, Civil Procedural Code
of 1908 does have something called "Suits by Aliens by or against Foreign
Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys".
It authorises the Indian
courts in the matters of immunity of foreign States related to jurisdiction.
Its effect is that the foreign country or its functionary is barred from taking
the defence of sovereign immunity under international law when the Indian
Government has given the consent to initiate action in that regards. In the
case of Mirza Ali Akbar[35].
Justice RAY, negatived plea of UAE and held that a Foreign State or its entity
venturing into a commercial transaction is not protected by the defence of
jurisdictional immunity in India. The Apex Court, in appeal,[36]
further held that S. 86 Code conclusively and exclusively determines the
competency of the courts to try such suits against foreign entities. The court
expressed that S. 86 "modifies" the doctrine of immunity recognized
by international law to certain extent. Again S. 86(6) mandates that the person
making such request shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case
before denying the consent.
Thus S.86 of the Code
ensures that no foreign sovereign state or its entity should suffer by undue
harassment by a suit based fictitious, frivolous or false claims. Cases like
Harbhajan[37] and
others[38]
by Indian Courts strongly emphasise that decisions of the Central Government
regarding consent are subjected to the
1.
Not
declining the consent due to cogent political and other reasons.
2.
Not
to adjudicate on the merits.
3.
The
accordance of consent is not immune from judicial review.
S. 86(3) the Code also
bars the execution of any decree against foreign state without written consent
of the central government. But section 86(6) is something which creates a
dichotomy here. It mandates that the opportunity of being heard is only
available to a person requesting the requisite consent to sue a foreign State
and not to a person who is seeking consent to execute a decree. This should not
be the law as it defeats the notion of equity, justice and reasonableness.
The British Sovereign
Immunity Act empowers its court to give effect to the jurisdictional immunity
of a foreign State. It need not be emphasised that determination of
jisdictional immunity claims by courts, as proclaimed in the Federal Sovereign
Immunity Act serves the interests of justice by protecting legitimate claims of
both the parties.
Thus, it is proposed that
India by enabling a proper legislation, should also adopt this kind of
approach. The interests of justice and and balancing the interests of both
parties, which have led the United State to entrust the power to adjudicate
upon the jurisdictional issue to its courts are also relevant in India. The
Indian governments viewpoint in that regard is also evident from the Memorandum
on State Immunity in respect of commercial transactions, submitted by the
Indian government to the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee (AALCC) in
1960.[39]
The Indian government in the Memorandum supported the notion of restrictive
immunity Therefore, India’s position is clear that the sovereign immunity
should be limited to "governmental" and not to the
"non-governmental" or "commercial" activities of a foreign
State.
3.3 Sovereign Immunity in the context
of International Arbitration and its enforceability:
Arbitration is one of the preferred
transnational dispute resolution mechanisms because of its workability and
effectiveness. The sanctity of ‘pacta sunta servanda’ is kept by effectiveness
of arbitration as it is based on freely entered agreement to arbitrate and is
honoured and sanctioned where need be. The arbitration agreement is presumed to
be conducted with integrity, expertise, efficiency and that the agreed award
can be enforced through domestic courts. The most important feature of the
international arbitration system is the fact that it is presumed to be final,
binding and directly enforceable. The trust of the award creditor that the
award is directly enforceable in member nations of New York convention is what
makes the international arbitration so robust.[40]
However, the biggest obstacle in enforcement of arbitral award is when the
award debtor state takes the defence of sovereign immunity which makes it
nearly impossible to enforce unless state voluntarily chooses to do so. The
problem is exacerbated as the execution of award against state is only possible
against the assets used by state by commercial purpose and not against assets
kept for public purpose. The party interested in enforcement of award is left
to cumbersome task of locating and identifying a non-governmental commercial
asset. Further task becomes more complicated as public international law treats
some assets of government as non-attachable at all.[41]
Countries like US, UK, Sweden and
France which considered as trading friendly states have discussed the extent of
sovereign immunity defence in the cases of arbitration and took a liberal
approach in favour enforcement and execution of international arbitration
award.[42]
Though India is the “new” kid on the block it seems to be becoming a leading
global pro-business jurisdiction and even pushing the status quo on sovereign
immunity doctrine in an increasingly liberal and pragmatic direction. India’s
pro-arbitration policy is reflective in its Arbitration and Conciliation Act of
1996 and series of court decisions followed 2012 onward.[43]
While deciding on the enforcement of international arbitration awards and
judgments the Indian courts have emphasized upon the importance of execution in
providing for an effective rule of law. In fact, India has followed the
restrictive immunity doctrine from a longer period than many may believe. In
the year of 1982, the High Court of Delhi while dealing with the matter of
immunity from jurisdiction and the Arbitration Act of 1940[44]
by differentiating between sovereign acts and private acts and explained that
the latter is identified by looking at the “nature” or “purpose” of the
transaction. Thus, it can be well argued that the Indian courts have embraced
the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity from a long time. India is also a
signatory to the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their
Properties (“UNCSI”), which signals its commitment to a more liberal position
and attitude towards free trade and commerce.
In the case of Ethiopian Airlines
v. Saboo[45], the
apex court highlighted that the newly enacted special statutes may have a
repealing or limiting effect on some provisions of Civil Procedural Code. The
court also made the remark that undertaking the membership of new and
specialised international convention like UNSCI may amount the implied waiver
of state immunity and that the concept of restrictive immunity now prevails in
Indian state. Furthermore, the Court also reasoned its decision on the argument
that the member states to the Warsaw Convention and signatories to the Carriage
by Air Act had impliedly waived any such immunity as soon as they chose to be a
party to such convention.
In the case of KLA/Matrix[46]
case court made it clear that there is no requirement under law for obtaining
prior consent of the Central Government under Section 86(3) of the Code for the
execution of an arbitral award against an award-debtor state. The Court
reasoned that “in the modern era, where there is close interconnection between
different countries as far as trade, commerce, and business are concerned, the
principle of sovereign immunity can no longer be absolute in the way that it
much earlier was” and “if state-owned entities cannot be brought to justice,
the rule of law would be degraded and international trade, commerce and
business will come to a grinding halt.” It also held that a state cannot claim
sovereign immunity against enforcement of an arbitral award arising out of a
commercial transaction and that the arbitration agreement will itself have a
effect of waiver of such immunity. Thus, the implied immunity concept as
provided in Ethiopian Airlines case(supra) and the double waiver doctrine as
held in KLA/Matrix case (supra), after the analysis of both, one can
claim that the investment treaty arbitration award and international
arbitration award can be enforced and executed in India without prior
requirement of the Central Government’s consent. Indian courts therefore by
removing the hurdles associated with expensive and time-consuming litigation
have in result elaborated for a “stable, predictable, and effective legal
framework for conducting commercial activities and to promote the smooth flow
of international transactions.”
.
Conclusion:
Though all dimensions of the doctrine
of sovereign immunity and its constant evolution in the contemporary world are
not possible in one paper, I have tried to analyse, in this paper, the origin
and the evolution of doctrine of sovereign immunity in both domestic as well as
international legal jurisprudence. It is evident from the above discussion that
the shift to democratic form of government from the authoritarian and
monarchical have restricted the existence and application of this doctrine in
the context of both domestic as well as international law. It seems to be evident
that with the change in the conceptions of sovereignty, the doctrine of
Sovereign Immunity has accordingly evolved to fix the accountability of the
state for a wrong committed by it. This in turn will fix not only tortious
liability of the states for the wrongs committed but also strengthens its
accountability in case of a breach when the state or its arm is taking any
contractual obligation. This will no doubt facilitates the environment of
trade, commerce and business activity between states with its own individual
citizens or businesses as well as with the foreign entities.
[1] Andrew Edward, Jean Bodin on
Sovereignty, Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge,
Politics, and the Arts 2, no. 2 (2011)
[2] George W. Pugh, Historical
Approach to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, 13 La. L. Rev. (1953)
[3] Immanuel Kant, The
Principles of Political Right, Frederick, Olafson, Society, Law,
and Morality (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1961)
[4] Lakshman Marasinghe, The Modern
Law of Sovereign Immunity 664-684, The Modern Law Review Volume 54
[6] Neel Maitra, Sovereign Immunity
in The Oxford handbook of the Indian Constitution (Sujit Choudhry, Madhav
Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta ed., 2016)
[7] BODIN, Si Books of the
Commonwealth, Oxford: Blackwell's Political Texts (M. J. Tooley ed., 1955)
[10] Fawcett, Legal Aspects of State
Trading 34-51, 25 B.Y.I.L. (1948)
[11] The State Immunity Act, 1978
(UK); The State Immunity Act, 1982 (Canada)
[13] Peninsular and Oriental steam
Navigation Company v. Secretary of state, 1861 5 B. H. C. R. App. P. 1.
[14] Secretary of State for India v.
Cockcraft (1916) ILR 39 Mad 351
[15] Krishna Ketana, Development of
the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in England and India (2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2402176 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2402176
[16] Kishanchand v. Secretary of State (1881) ILR 2
All 829
[17] A.M. Ross v. The Secretary of
State for India (1914) ILR 37 Mad 55
[19] Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. The
State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1039, 1965 SCR (1) 375
[20] Rakesh Kumar, Doctrine of
Constitutional Tort: Evolution and Evaluation (2004)
[21] N.Nagendra Rao & Co v.
State Of A.P. 1994 SCC (6) 205
[22] The Chairman, Railway Board
& Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 988
[23] State 0F Bombay & Others v.
The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Others 1960 SCR (2) 866
[24] The Corporation of The City of Nagpur
v. Its Employees 1960 SCR (2) 942
[25] State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Tulsi
Ram and Ors. AIR 1971 ALL 162
[27] Borthakur Richa and Agarwal
Rishika, A comprehensive guide to civil sovereign immunity in India: from
Austinian absolutism towards diminished applicability, Pen Acclaims Journal,
12. pp. 1-16. ISSN 2581-5504
[28] Constitution of India, 1950, A.
298
[29] State Of Bihar v. Abdul
Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245
[31] The State of Bihar v. Rani
Sonabati Kumari AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 221
[32] Nav Rattanmal and Others v. The
State of Rajasthan 1962 SCR (2) 324
[33] Constitution of India, 1950, A.
300.
[35]United Arab Republic and Anr. v.
Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani AIR 1962 CALCUTTA 387.
[36]Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United
Arab Republic and Anr 1966 SCR (1) 319
[37] Harbhajan Singh v. Union of
India 1987 SCR (1) 114
[38] Narottam Kishore Dev Varma and
Ors v. Union of India and Another 1964 SCR (7) 55
[39] Asian-African Legal Consultative
Committee, 3rd Session held in Colombo, 1960
[40] Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, (Mar. 18,
1965), United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards (Jun. 10, 1958)
[41] UN Convention on Jurisdictional
Immunities of States and Their Property, A. 19 and A.21
[42] Ylli Dautaj, Sovereign
Immunity from Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: The
"New" Kid on the (Super) Pro-Arbitration Block, 15 Arb. L. Rev.
19 (2024).
[43] The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, No. 16 of 1996, India Code (1996); Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser
Aluminium Technical Services Ltd., (2012) 9 SCC 552; Union of India v. U.P.
State Bridge Corporation Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 52.
[44] Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.
Pvt. Ltd. v. United States of America, Agency of International Development, (1982)
ILR 2 Del 273
[45]Ethiopian Airlines v. Saboo,
(2011) 8 SCC 539.
Article Information
ANALYSING THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TREND IN INDIA
Authors: VIJAY ANDHALE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/25
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.