The State is liable to pay compensation for the loss of life caused by the wrongs committed by public officials, and the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable in claims for compensation for violation of Fundamental Rights.

P. Devadass, J.

The Appeal:

1. This writ appeal has been directed as against the order of the Writ Court, dated 1.2.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.187 of 2011, whereunder the Court had directed the State/first Appellant to pay Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation to the respondents/writ petitioners for the loss of life of their son Irulaiya in a bomb explosion in a State owned Transport Corporation bus.

Brief facts:

2. During the third week of May, 2009, there was news that Velu Pillai Prbakaran, L.T.T.E. Supremo has been killed in army action in Sri Lanka. There were agitations in various parts of the State. Under these circumstances, on 20.5.2009, son of the writ petitioners travelled in the State Transport Corporation bus TN-33-N-2155. At about 2 p.m., near the Panchayat Office in Thiruppuvanam in Sivagangai District, certain persons have hurled petrol bombs into the bus. In the explosion, three persons sustained injuries. One of them is Irulaiya. They were rushed to the Government Hospital. In connection with this untoward incident, the police registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2009 under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. On 23.5.2009, Irulaiya succumbed to the injuries. Thus, Sections 323, 324 and 302 IPC were also added. In the course of investigation, Siruthai Selvam @ Selvakumar, Jeyaraj and Kani, members of 'Viduthalai Siruthaigal Party' were nabbed. On completion of investigation, police filed Final Report against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C.No.13 of 2010. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai took cognizance of the case in S.C.No.3 of 2011.

3. Alleging failure on the part of the police in protecting the life of their son, the parents of the deceased have filed the writ petition seeking compensation. At the relevant time, the deceased was 26 years old. He is their only son. He studied upto S.S.L.C. He was a coolie.

4. The Court held that there was negligence on the part of the police, thus, the State is liable and ordered payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the writ petitioners and also gave liberty to the State to recover the amount from the accused.

Contentions: State

5. Mr.M.Govindan, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader for the appellants contended that on that day police provided adequate protection. No failure on their part. The culprits were booked. Case has been filed. The death was due to the unlawful activities of some third parties. Government cannot be blamed for that.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader also contended that seeking compensation is a matter of civil liability arising out of breach of contract or commission of a tortious act. For that, a writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India will not lie. Only a Civil Suit for compensation will lie. Further, disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in writ proceedings.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the defence of sovereign immunity is available to the State. Further, the method adopted by the Court in determining the compensation is incorrect. It wrongly took the multiplier 18' instead of 13'. The deceased died as a bachelor. The deduction from his income should have been 50%. However, the Writ Court deducted only 1/3. In this respect, the learned Special Government Pleader cited SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (6) SCC 121].

Contention : Parents

8. Mr.K.Kumaravel, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that Article 21, Constitution of India guarantees life and liberty to everyone. It is a Fundamental Right. It has to be guarded by the State. When State fails to guard it, there is violation of Fundamental Right. For such violation, compensation can be sought for against the State in a writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India. For such a claim, defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the State. It is