In a landmark judgment with profound implications for road safety and state accountability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a decisive blow to the blanket use of sovereign immunity as a shield in cases of negligent driving by military personnel on public roads. The court has firmly held that the Union of India cannot evade responsibility by invoking this archaic doctrine for routine administrative acts like driving.
The Core Ruling: Sovereign Immunity is Not Absolute
The bench, led by Justice Virinder Aggarwal, articulated a clear and modern constitutional perspective. The court ruled that sovereign immunity is not an absolute protection. It operates only within a very narrow sphere of functions that are directly and inextricably linked to the core sovereign powers of the State.
The judgment stated that this immunity cannot be invoked to shield routine administrative, operational, or vehicular acts of government servants from judicial scrutiny or civil liability. The court emphasized that the state, while exercising its powers, must act in consonance with the Constitution and the will of the people, and cannot claim a supremacy that overrides the fundamental rights of citizens.
Overturning a Two-Decade-Old Injustice
The ruling came while the court was hearing an appeal for compensation for four civilians injured in a road accident dating back to August 16, 1996. On that day, a military truck, driven rashly while overtaking a bus on the GT Road near Khanpur Kolian village in Kurukshetra, collided head-on with a Maruti car. Five occupants of the car sustained serious injuries.
Despite evidence from FIRs, medical records, and witness testimonies that established the Army driver's fault, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kurukshetra had, in a 2001 decision, dismissed the victims' compensation claims. The tribunal had accepted the argument that the driver was performing a sovereign function, thus granting the Union of India immunity from liability.
HC Rejects Archaic Doctrine, Upholds Vicarious Liability
The High Court found the tribunal's findings wholly unsustainable in law. Justice Aggarwal's bench overturned the MACT order, calling the application of sovereign immunity in this case incorrect. The court reiterated that the doctrine, which originates from the English maxim rex non potest peccare (the king can do no wrong), cannot be mechanically applied in India's modern constitutional framework.
The HC firmly held that negligent driving on a public road cannot be equated with a sovereign function to absolve the state of liability. The court clarified that the doctrine had no application to the facts of this case. Instead, it reinforced the principle of vicarious liability, stating that the Union of India, as the employer and owner of the offending vehicle, is legally responsible for the negligent acts of its driver.
The judgment sets a powerful precedent, ensuring that the defense of sovereign immunity cannot be misused to deny justice to citizens harmed by the negligent operational acts of state employees, including those in the armed forces, on public roads.
