High Court says govt cannot claim 'sovereign immunity' in case of negligent driving by Army personnel

Representative image

In a ruling that could significantly reshape how accident claims involving military vehicles are handled, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Union of India cannot take refuge behind the doctrine of sovereign immunity when Army personnel cause road accidents through negligent driving on public roads.

According to a report by The Times of India, setting aside a 2001 order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kurukshetra, Justice Virinder Aggarwal awarded compensation to four civilians who were injured in a 1996 collision with a military truck.

The tribunal had earlier acknowledged that the Army driver was at fault but still rejected the claims, holding that the driver was engaged in a “sovereign function,” thereby protecting the Union of India from liability.

The High Court disagreed, describing the tribunal’s reasoning as legally untenable. It said that rash or negligent driving on a public road cannot be categorised as a sovereign act.

“Sovereign immunity is not absolute, 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 court ruled.

The case arose from an accident on August 16, 1996, on the GT Road near Khanpur Kolian village in Kurukshetra. A military truck, while overtaking a bus at high speed, rammed head-on into a Maruti car.

Five people travelling in the car suffered serious injuries. Evidence on record, including FIRs, medical documents and eyewitness accounts, had conclusively fixed responsibility on the Army driver.

Justice Aggarwal pointed out that the historical concept of sovereign immunity, rooted in the English maxim “rex non potest peccare -- the king can do no wrong,” cannot be blindly imported into India’s constitutional framework.

The court observed that the State, while exercising its authority, remains answerable to constitutional principles and cannot claim a position above the fundamental rights of citizens.

“The doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application to the facts of the present case. The Union of India, being the employer and owner of the offending vehicle, is vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver. The finding of the tribunal to the contrary is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside,” the judgment said.

Reinforcing the democratic foundation of governance, the court said: “In essence, sovereignty in India is inalienably vested in the people, and all organs of the State are constitutionally obligated to exercise their authority within this framework...The act complained of driving a motor vehicle on a public road is purely operational in nature and has no nexus with the inalienable sovereign functions of the State.”

The High Court overturned the MACT’s earlier decision and granted relief to the injured civilians, marking a clear rejection of blanket immunity claims in cases of routine operational negligence by State actors.