1989 Supreme(AP) 93

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, Y.BHASKAR RAO
Ch.Ramakrishna Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
A.S No.2162/86
Decided On : 02-17-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. C. Poornaiah

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Arts. 21 and 300 (1) - Immunity of - Sovereign functions envisaged in Art. 300 (1) is not an exception to Art. 21 - Negligence of Jail Officials in guarding a jail resulting in killing of some prisoners by outsiders State is liable to pay damages.

       Held : Per Jeevan Reddy, .1.,:The concept of immunity in respect of sovereign functions, implicit in Clause (1) of Art. 300, cannot be recognized as an exception to Art. 21. Art. 21 does not recognize any exception, and no such exception can be read into it by reference to Cl. (1) of Art. 300. Where a citizen has been deprived of his life, or liberty, otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, it is no answer to say that the said deprivation was brought about while the Officials of the State were acting in discharge of the sovereign functions of the State.

       Just as it is necessary to check evasion and violation of law on the part of citizens, it is equally necessary to ensure that the State Officials do not act with gross negligence and do not abuse their powers, to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens. Both are equally important. State power does not confer a licence upon its officials to act contrary to law, or to be grossly negligent in their duties, to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens. So long as the officials got fairly and with reasonable care, no action can lie. Only, when they abuse their powers, act with gross negligence resulting in deprivation of life and liberty of the citizens, does the State become liable for compensation.

       In this case, when a specific request was made for additional precautions, the failure not only to provide additional precautions, but the failure to provide even, the normal guard duty cannot but be termed as gross negligence. It is an omission to perform the statutory responsibility placed upon them by Rule 48 of the Madras Prisons Rules. Therefore, the claim for damages must succeed.

       Even in a prison a convict or an under trial prisoner is very well entitled to his precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life. This right to life is more substantial in nature and the responsibility of the prison authorities is much more onerous when the petitioner complains of a threat to this precious right.

       Per Bhaskar Rao, J.,:- (Concurring) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, viz., the negligence on the part of the Police Officials in failing to Provide adequate guard to protect the life of the deceased, more so when the deceased apprehended danger to his life and also expressed the need, the invocation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by the State is not permissible.

       A.S. Partly Allowed