Doctrine of Immunity of Instrumentalities
1. Meaning of Doctrine of Immunity of Instrumentalities
The Doctrine of Immunity of Instrumentalities is a principle in constitutional and administrative law which states:
The property, assets, or functions of the government or its agencies (instrumentalities) cannot be attached, seized, or sued without its consent, even in matters where the government acts as a private entity.
Key Idea:
The doctrine is an extension of Sovereign Immunity, but focuses on government-owned corporations, agencies, or instrumentalities.
Protects government entities performing public functions from legal interference.
2. Basis in Indian Law
Article 300 of the Constitution:
Provides that the Government of India or State Governments can be sued in civil courts in accordance with the law.
Government may waive immunity explicitly.
Judicial Interpretation:
Courts distinguish between:
Instrumentalities performing sovereign functions – immunity generally applies.
Instrumentalities performing commercial/private functions – can be sued like private parties.
Examples of Instrumentalities:
Public sector corporations (e.g., LIC, ONGC)
Government-owned utilities
Regulatory bodies executing state policy
3. Key Features
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Scope | Protects government-owned entities from suit or attachment |
| Types of Acts | - Sovereign/public functions (immune) - Commercial/private functions (not immune) |
| Consent | Immunity waived if statutory or contractual consent is provided |
| Objective | Ensure efficient functioning of government entities without legal harassment |
4. Judicial Interpretation in India
Case 1: Union of India v. Association of Mumbai Port Trust (1981 AIR 1259)
Facts: Suit against a port trust (government instrumentality) for alleged commercial losses.
Principle: Court held that government instrumentalities performing commercial functions can be sued, but sovereign acts retain immunity.
Case 2: R. K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)
Facts: Suit against the government for alleged wrongful acts in administration.
Principle: Government cannot be sued for acts done in sovereign capacity, but acts of instrumentalities not involving sovereign functions are justiciable.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962 AIR 933)
Facts: Claim for compensation for damages caused by government actions.
Principle: Government immunity does not extend to negligence in non-sovereign functions.
5. Distinction Between Related Doctrines
| Doctrine | Focus | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereign Immunity | Protects the State itself | Acts done in sovereign capacity |
| Immunity of Instrumentalities | Protects government agencies/PSUs | Acts performed as public function, not commercial |
| No Immunity for Commercial Acts | - | Acts performed by instrumentalities as business/commercial enterprise can be challenged in courts |
6. Practical Application
Sovereign Acts (Acta Jure Imperii):
E.g., law-making, defense, foreign policy.
Immunity applies; cannot be sued.
Commercial/Private Acts (Acta Jure Gestionis):
E.g., PSUs selling goods/services.
Immunity does not apply; courts can adjudicate claims.
Consent by Legislation:
Some statutes waive immunity explicitly, e.g., Railways Act, LIC Act.
7. Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Doctrine | Protects government-owned instrumentalities from suits in sovereign acts |
| Constitutional Basis | Article 300 |
| Exceptions | Commercial acts, statutory waiver, contractual consent |
| Judicial Principles | - Distinction between sovereign and commercial acts - Immunity not absolute |
| Objective | Ensure efficient governance while allowing accountability in private functions |
8. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Immunity of Instrumentalities:
Protects government agencies and public sector corporations from legal action when performing sovereign/public functions.
Courts in India have limited the scope, holding that commercial and private acts are justiciable.
Ensures balance between government efficiency and citizens’ right to legal remedy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments