In a landmark judgment with profound implications for road safety and state accountability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has unequivocally ruled that the Union of India cannot hide behind the shield of "sovereign immunity" in cases involving negligent driving by Army personnel on public roads.
A 1996 Accident and a Long Legal Battle
The court's decisive order came while adjudicating a long-pending compensation case related to a severe road accident that occurred back on August 16, 1996. On that day, a military truck, driven rashly while attempting to overtake a bus on the Grand Trunk Road near Khanpur Kolian village in Kurukshetra, collided head-on with a Maruti car.
The collision resulted in serious injuries to five occupants of the car. The evidence, including First Information Reports (FIRs), medical records, and witness testimonies, clearly established the fault and negligence of the Army driver.
Overturning an Erroneous Tribunal Decision
Despite the clear evidence of negligence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kurukshetra had, in a 2001 decision, dismissed the victims' claims for compensation. The tribunal had accepted the argument that the Army driver was performing a "sovereign function" at the time, thereby granting the Union of India immunity from any liability.
This finding was overturned and set aside by Justice Virinder Aggarwal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The bench declared the tribunal's conclusions as "wholly unsustainable in law." The court firmly stated that negligent driving on a public highway cannot be equated with a sovereign function to escape financial responsibility for the harm caused.
The Core of the Judgment: Sovereignty Lies with the People
The High Court delivered a powerful constitutional interpretation, significantly narrowing the scope of sovereign immunity. The bench observed that this doctrine, which originates from the old English maxim "rex non potest peccare" (the king can do no wrong), cannot be applied mechanically in modern India's constitutional framework.
"Sovereign immunity is not absolute," the court ruled. "It operates only within a very narrow sphere of functions that are inextricably linked with the core sovereign powers of the State, and it cannot be invoked to shield routine administrative, operational, or vehicular acts of government servants from judicial scrutiny or civil liability."
The judgment emphasized that in India, sovereignty is ultimately vested in the people. All state organs, including the military, must exercise their powers in harmony with the Constitution and cannot place themselves above the fundamental rights of citizens.
Vicarious Liability and the Path Forward
Applying this principle to the case, the HC held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity had no application to the facts at hand. The act of driving a vehicle on a public road was deemed a purely operational activity with no connection to the state's inalienable sovereign functions.
Consequently, the court established that the Union of India, as the employer and owner of the offending military truck, is vicariously liable for the negligent actions of its driver. The bench proceeded to award compensation to the four injured civilians, finally providing them justice after a legal fight spanning over two decades.
This ruling sets a crucial precedent, ensuring that the defense of sovereign immunity cannot be misused to deny compensation to victims of road accidents caused by negligent driving of government vehicles, including those of the armed forces.
