Article 300: Suits and Proceedings By or Against Government

Can you sue the Government of India? Article 300 says yes, sometimes. Three Supreme Court cases, spread over three decades, drew the line between when the State pays and when it does not. It is the story of how “sovereign immunity” shrank to a narrow core.

1Chapter 1: What Article 300 Says

Must Know

Clause (1): a name for the government

• The Government of India may sue or be sued as the “Union of India”.
• A State government may sue or be sued in the name of the State.
• A government is not a natural person. So the Constitution gives it a legal identity.
• Without this, you could not file a case against the government at all.
• The liability is the same as the old Dominion of India, the Provinces or Indian States would have had.
• Parliament or a State Legislature may change this by law. So Article 300 is a starting point, not the last word.

Clause (2): pending cases

• Cases pending against the Dominion carried on against the Union.
• Cases against a Province or Indian State carried on against the matching State.

Where it sits

• Article 300 sits in Part XII, on Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits.
• It shares the Part with Articles 292 and 293 on borrowing, and Article 265 on tax.
• Read Article 265 of the Constitution.

2Chapter 2: Vidyawati (1962) and Kasturilal (1965)

Good to Know

The jeep: State liable

• In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), a government jeep driver drove negligently. A pedestrian died.
• The Court held the State liable.
• Driving a jeep for an officer’s use had nothing to do with sovereign power.
• So the State answered for its servant’s wrong, as any employer would.
• This is the principle of vicarious liability.

The lost gold: State immune

• In Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965), police seized a trader’s gold and silver.
• A head constable misappropriated the gold and ran away. It was never recovered.
• The Court denied compensation. It held that seizing property under a statute is a sovereign function.
• So the State was immune.
• The ruling was widely criticised. A wronged citizen was left with no remedy.

3Chapter 3: Nagendra Rao (1994) and the Narrow Core

Good to Know

The 1994 ruling

• In N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994), goods were seized under a statute. Official negligence caused the loss.
• The Court said only “primary and inalienable” functions still carry immunity.
• Its examples were justice, law and order, and defence.
• Welfare and regulatory work, like licensing or seizing goods under a trade law, no longer carries immunity.
• The State was told to pay.
• Kasturilal’s wide immunity was cut back to a narrow core.

The three cases together

• The test is the nature of the function, not who did the act.
• Sovereign acts are shielded. Ordinary and welfare acts are not.
• The memory line: liable, then immune, then mostly liable again.

4Chapter 4: Where the Doctrine Came From

Great to Know

From the Crown to the republic

• Sovereign immunity came from English law. The Crown could not be sued in tort.
• Article 300 kept the doctrine alive at first.
• Courts then narrowed it case by case.
• The test became: is it a sovereign function (immune) or an ordinary function (liable)?
• The shift reflects a modern view. The State, like any actor, should compensate for harm in its non-sovereign dealings.
• The 32 years between Kasturilal and Nagendra Rao show how far one doctrine can drift.

Related remedies

• Read Article 32 of the Constitution, Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Writs: Constitutional Remedies and Right to Property: Article 300A.
• Article 300A, on property, is a different article from Article 300.
• The tax cousin is Article 286.

5In the News: Welfare State, Shrinking Immunity

Current Affairs

Why it keeps appearing

• Suits against the government on land, contracts and compensation are routine.
• Each rests on Article 300’s grant of legal identity and liability.
• As the State takes on more welfare and regulatory work, fewer acts count as sovereign.
• This widens citizens’ remedies. It follows directly from the 1994 narrowing.
• The trend is toward greater accountability, with immunity shrinking.

6Previous Year Questions

Exam angle: what examiners ask, and the traps around it.

Quick Q&A

• Union sued as? Union of India.
• Vidyawati year? 1962.
• Kasturilal about? Seized gold.
• Nagendra Rao year? 1994.
• Which Part? Part XII.