Individuals

Individuals

---

General Capacity to Sue

In tort law, as a general rule, any natural person (individual human being) who has suffered damage as a result of a tortious act has the legal standing or capacity to bring a lawsuit (to sue) against the wrongdoer. This right arises from the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium, meaning "where there is a right, there is a remedy". If a person's legal rights are infringed by a tort, they generally have the right to seek a remedy from the courts.

---

This capacity to sue is almost universal for individuals in modern legal systems, including India. There were historical limitations on certain categories of individuals, such as married women, minors, or persons of unsound mind, but these limitations have largely been removed or modified by statute or judicial interpretation. In India, subject to procedural rules (like suing through a guardian in the case of minors or persons with unsound mind as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), most individuals have the substantive right to sue in tort.

Exceptions are rare and usually relate to public policy or the nature of the right infringed. For instance, an alien enemy might have restrictions on suing during wartime, or certain public officials might be barred from suing for defamation in relation to their official duties in some contexts (though this is debated and limited).

The primary requirement is that the individual must have suffered a legally recognised harm (damage) as a result of the defendant's tortious act, and they must be the person entitled to seek redress for that specific harm.

---

Answer:

Corporations

Corporations

---

Legal Personality and Capacity to Sue

A corporation, such as a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 in India, is a legal entity distinct from its members (shareholders). It has its own legal personality. As a legal person, a corporation generally has the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name, just like a natural person, for torts committed against it.

---

However, the types of torts for which a corporation can sue are limited by its nature as an artificial legal entity. A corporation cannot suffer personal injuries, false imprisonment, or assault in the same way an individual can. Corporations can sue for torts that cause damage to their property, their business interests, or their reputation. Common torts for which corporations can sue include:

• Defamation: A corporation can sue for defamation (libel or slander) that damages its business reputation, credit, or causes it financial loss.
• Trespass: To its land or property.
• Nuisance: Interference with the use and enjoyment of its property.
• Conversion or Detinue: Wrongful interference with its goods.
• Negligence: Causing physical damage to its property or economic loss through negligent acts.
• Passing Off: To protect its goodwill and reputation from misrepresentation by others.

The crucial element is that the tort must have inflicted damage of a kind that a corporation can suffer, typically economic loss or damage to reputation or property, flowing from the wrongful act directed at the corporation itself.

---

Answer:

Trade Unions

Trade Unions

---

Legal Status and Immunity from Suit in Tort

The capacity of Trade Unions to sue and be sued in tort has a unique history, particularly influenced by developments in English law, which were then reflected in Indian legislation.

---

Historical Context (England)

At common law, trade unions were often viewed as unincorporated associations, which created difficulties regarding their legal standing to sue or be sued. The landmark case of the Taff Vale Railway Co. v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426 held that a trade union could be sued in tort in its registered name, despite being an unincorporated association. This decision led to significant concerns among trade unions about their funds being exposed to liability for strike actions.

In response to the Taff Vale decision, the British Parliament passed the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. Section 4 of this Act granted trade unions a wide immunity from actions in tort, stating that an action against a trade union... or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court.

---

Position in India (Trade Unions Act, 1926)

India, following the English model, enacted the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 13 of this Act grants registered trade unions the status of a body corporate, giving them perpetual succession and a common seal, and the power to acquire and hold property, and to sue and be sued.

However, mirroring the English immunity, Section 18 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides significant immunity to registered trade unions and their office bearers/members. Section 18 states:

"(1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil Court against any registered Trade Union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or is in interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills.

(2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court in respect of any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute by an agent of the Trade Union if it be proved that such person acted without the express or implied authority of the registered Trade Union."

This section grants immunity from tort actions specifically for acts done "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". The immunity covers torts like inducing breach of contract of employment, interference with trade/business, etc., when done in this context. Section 18(2) provides additional protection regarding unauthorised tortious acts by agents. The scope of this immunity, particularly whether it extends to all torts (like negligence causing physical injury or defamation unrelated to a trade dispute strategy), has been subject to judicial interpretation, but it generally provides protection for legitimate trade union activities during disputes.

Therefore, while a registered trade union in India has the general capacity to sue and be sued as a body corporate (Section 13), its liability in tort, particularly for acts related to trade disputes, is significantly limited by the immunity provided under Section 18.

Conversely, a registered trade union can sue for torts committed against it, for example, defamation against the union itself or trespass to its property.

---

Answer:

Mental Incapacity

Mental Incapacity

---

Capacity to Sue

Persons suffering from mental incapacity, such as those with severe intellectual disabilities or mental illness that renders them incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of legal proceedings, are generally recognised as having the substantive right to sue for torts committed against them. However, their legal capacity to *initiate and conduct* a lawsuit is limited due to their inability to manage their own affairs.

In India, as per Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, individuals who are, by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, incapable of protecting their interests in a suit, must sue through a "next friend". A next friend is a person who is legally competent and represents the person with mental incapacity in the lawsuit. The court's permission is usually required for someone to act as a next friend.

The tortious act itself is assessed based on whether it caused harm to the person with mental incapacity. The fact of their mental state does not eliminate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or the damage suffered. Their mental state might be relevant in assessing potential contributory negligence, if they were capable of understanding and avoiding a risk, but it does not bar their right to sue altogether.

Thus, while they cannot personally institute proceedings, their right to seek redress through a representative is fully preserved. They are not persons who cannot sue, but rather persons who must sue through a specific legal mechanism.

---

Answer:

Drunkards and Drug Addicts

Drunkards and Drug Addicts

---

Capacity to Sue

Generally, a person's state of being a drunkard or a drug addict, whether habitual or temporary (through intoxication at the time of the tort), does not deprive them of their legal capacity to sue for torts committed against them.

If an individual is harmed by the tortious act of another while intoxicated or due to consequences related to their addiction, they still have the fundamental right to seek legal remedy. The defendant's tortious conduct is assessed independently of the plaintiff's state.

However, the plaintiff's state of intoxication or addiction can be highly relevant in the context of contributory negligence. If the plaintiff's impaired state caused them to fail to take reasonable care for their own safety, and this failure contributed to their injury, their recoverable damages may be reduced under the principles of apportionment of damages. For example, a pedestrian hit by a negligent driver might have their damages reduced if their extreme intoxication contributed to them walking into dangerous traffic.

Furthermore, if a person's addiction or state of being a drunkard is considered a form of mental infirmity rendering them incapable of managing their affairs, they might need to sue through a "next friend" similar to other cases of mental incapacity under Order 32 of the CPC, 1908. But this is based on the resulting mental state, not merely the fact of being a drunkard or addict.

In summary, being a drunkard or drug addict does not, in itself, bar a person from suing in tort, although their condition might impact the assessment of fault and damages.

---

Answer:

Minors

Minors

---

General Capacity

A minor (a person under the age of 18 years in India, as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875) has the full substantive legal right to sue for any tort committed against them. Their age does not diminish the wrongfulness of the defendant's actions or the damage suffered. If a minor is injured, defamed, or has their property damaged by a tort, they are entitled to seek redress from the wrongdoer.

---

Procedural Requirements and Exceptions

While minors have the right to sue, they lack the legal capacity to conduct legal proceedings themselves. Therefore, as per Order 32, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a minor must sue through a person called the "next friend". The next friend is typically a parent, guardian, or other adult who is competent to act and represents the minor's interests in the suit. The court's permission is usually necessary for a person to act as a next friend, and the court ensures that the suit is for the minor's benefit.

The user's prompt mentions "Exceptions (e.g., torts involving personal property)". There are generally no substantive exceptions that prevent a minor from suing for torts against their person or property, including personal property. The capacity exists. The "exceptions" heading here might refer to the procedural requirement of suing through a next friend, which is mandatory, not an option. It's a limitation on *how* they sue, not *whether* they can sue.

Also, while a minor can sue, their age can be relevant when considering whether they were contributorily negligent. The standard of care applied to a minor is not that of a reasonable adult, but that of a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, and experience. So, a young child might be deemed incapable of contributory negligence, while an older teenager might be held to a standard closer to that of an adult, depending on the circumstances.

In summary, a minor can sue for any tort against them, including those involving personal property, but procedural rules require them to be represented by a next friend. Their age is a factor in assessing their own conduct (contributory negligence) but not in determining their right to sue.

---

Answer:

Convicts

Convicts

---

Historical Position (Civil Death)

Historically, under early English common law, persons convicted of serious felonies (like treason or felony) were subject to "attainder," which resulted in "civil death." This meant they lost most civil rights, including the right to own property and the right to sue in court. This was a severe disability imposed as a consequence of their crime.

---

Modern Position (Abolition of Disability)

The historical concept of civil death for convicts has been abolished by statute in England and is not part of modern Indian law. A person's conviction for a crime, regardless of its severity or whether they are currently incarcerated, does not deprive them of their fundamental right to sue in tort for wrongs committed against them.

A convict retains the capacity to own property and to enforce their legal rights through the courts. If a person is assaulted, defamed, or suffers property damage while in prison or outside, they can sue the tortfeasor. Practical difficulties may arise regarding access to legal counsel or court appearances while incarcerated, but these are procedural issues related to imprisonment, not a lack of legal capacity to sue.

In India, there is no legal disability imposed on convicts that prevents them from filing civil suits, including suits in tort. They can sue in their own name.

---

Answer:

Married Women (Historical Context and Modern Position)

Married Women (Historical Context and Modern Position)

---

Historical Common Law Disability (Coverture)

Under the strict common law of England, a married woman had severely limited legal capacity due to the doctrine of "coverture." Upon marriage, her legal identity was considered to merge with that of her husband. In essence, she ceased to be a distinct legal person in many respects. Consequently:

• A married woman generally could not sue or be sued in her own name.
• If she suffered a tort, the husband had to sue, often joining her name in the action, but primarily to recover damages that were considered his property (e.g., for loss of her services or consortium).
• If she committed a tort, her husband was liable for it, and he had to be sued.
• A wife could not sue her husband in tort, nor could a husband sue his wife.

This doctrine was based on outdated social and legal views of marriage and the status of women.

---

Statutory Reforms and Modern Position

The severe disabilities of married women at common law were progressively removed by legislation. In England, the series of Married Women's Property Acts, particularly the Act of 1882, were pivotal. These Acts granted married women the right to own and control property independently of their husbands and to sue and be sued in their own name in tort and contract as if they were unmarried women (feme sole).

In India, the legal position of married women is now based on principles of equality and has moved completely away from the common law doctrine of coverture. Indian law recognises married women as having full legal personality and capacity.

Under modern Indian law:

• A married woman has the full capacity to sue and be sued in her own name for any tort.
• She can sue third parties for torts committed against her (e.g., personal injury, defamation, damage to her property).
• Third parties can sue her for torts committed by her.
• Importantly, she can sue her husband in tort, and he can sue her, although suits for inter-spousal torts are relatively less common compared to suits against third parties.

Thus, the historical limitations based on marital status have been completely abolished, and married women have the same capacity to sue and be sued in tort as any other adult individual.

---

Answer:

Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign Immunity

---

Concept and Historical Background

Sovereign Immunity is a legal doctrine that grants the State or the Government immunity from being sued in its own courts without its consent. Historically rooted in the English common law maxim "The King can do no wrong," this doctrine reflects the idea that the sovereign (or the state) is paramount and cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts which are, in a sense, the sovereign's own creation.

In its absolute form, sovereign immunity meant that a private citizen could not bring a lawsuit (including a tort action) against the Crown or Government unless the Crown itself permitted it, usually through a petition of right. This often left individuals without a remedy for wrongs committed by state officials or departments.

---

Sovereign Immunity in India

When India gained independence, the legal position regarding the liability of the State largely continued based on the practice that existed before independence, as provided under Article 300 of the Constitution of India. This article states that the Government of India or the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the name of the Union of India or the State, as the case may be, in relation to their respective affairs, "in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted."

This meant the capacity of the Union and State Governments to be sued in tort was linked to the position of the East India Company and later the British Crown before 1950. The key judicial interpretation determining this capacity came from the landmark case of P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1861), decided by the Calcutta Supreme Court.

---

The P. & O. Case Distinction

In the P. & O. case, the court drew a distinction between the sovereign acts and non-sovereign (or commercial/operational) acts of the government. It held that the East India Company (and subsequently the Crown/Government in India) could be sued for torts committed in the course of its non-sovereign functions, but was immune from liability for torts committed in the exercise of sovereign functions.

• Sovereign Functions: These were typically considered acts that could only be performed by the state, such as maintaining the army, making laws, administering justice, maintaining peace and order, diplomacy, acts of state. For torts committed during these functions, the state was immune.
• Non-Sovereign (Commercial/Operational) Functions: These were acts that a private individual or entity could also perform, such as carrying goods, trading, managing property, running a railway, maintaining docks. For torts committed during these functions, the state was liable, similar to a private employer under the principle of vicarious liability.

---

Subsequent Developments and Criticism

The distinction established in the P. & O. case was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1965 SC 1039]. In this case, the plaintiff's gold and silver, seized by the police (a sovereign function), were misappropriated by a police official. The Supreme Court held that the State was immune from liability because the police were acting in the exercise of a sovereign function.

The Kasturilal decision faced significant criticism for perpetuating a colonial-era distinction that was seen as unjust in a modern welfare state where the state engages in numerous activities impacting citizens. The line between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is often blurred in reality.

---

Modern Trend and Erosion of Immunity

Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have since shown a trend towards narrowing the scope of sovereign immunity and expanding state liability, especially in cases involving negligence, fundamental rights violations, or acts that have a commercial or operational analogue. Subsequent judgments have distinguished Kasturilal or criticised its broad application, particularly where the state's activity involves interaction with the public in a way that private entities also interact.

For instance, the state has been held liable for negligence in maintaining roads, running hospitals, or causing injury during operational activities that are not purely 'sovereign' in the traditional sense. The courts are increasingly focusing on whether the state's activity, even if governmental, is such that an ordinary person or body could be held liable for similar harm caused by negligence. There is a judicial push towards making the state liable for the torts of its servants in the same way a private employer is liable.

Despite this trend and criticism of Kasturilal, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions has not been formally abolished by legislation in India, leading to some uncertainty, although the judicial approach is clearly moving towards greater state accountability.

---

Answer:

---

Answer:

Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic Immunity

---

Basis and Scope

Diplomatic Immunity is a principle of international law that grants immunity to diplomatic agents and certain other persons connected with diplomatic missions from the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State. The primary legal framework governing diplomatic relations and immunities globally is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, to which India is a party.

The rationale behind diplomatic immunity is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States. Diplomats need to carry out their duties without fear of harassment, arrest, or prosecution in the host country.

---

Immunity in Tort Actions

Under the Vienna Convention, a diplomatic agent (like an ambassador, counsellor, secretary of embassy) enjoys immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State (Article 31(1)). This means they generally cannot be sued in the courts of the country where they are posted for torts they commit there.

This immunity is quite broad but not absolute in civil matters. Article 31(1) lists specific exceptions to civil immunity:

• (a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
• (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
• (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.

For torts not falling within these exceptions (e.g., a road traffic accident caused by a diplomat's negligent driving, or defamation unrelated to official duties but not a 'professional or commercial activity'), the diplomat generally enjoys immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving state's courts.

---

Persons Covered and Waiver

Immunity under the Convention extends not only to the diplomatic agent but also to members of their family forming part of their household, provided they are not nationals of the receiving State (Article 37(1)). Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, and members of their families forming part of their respective households, if not nationals or permanently resident in the receiving State, also enjoy similar immunities regarding acts performed in the course of their duties, and more limited immunity outside official duties (Article 37(2)).

Diplomatic immunity is the privilege of the sending State, not the individual diplomat. The sending State can waive the immunity of its diplomatic agent (Article 32). Waiver must be express. If immunity is waived, the diplomat can be sued in the receiving State's courts.

---

Remedies for Victims

If a person is injured by a tort committed by a diplomat enjoying immunity, they are generally barred from suing that diplomat in the courts of the receiving state. The victim's options are limited:

• Requesting the sending State to waive immunity (which they are not obligated to do, though the Vienna Convention encourages it where immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the purpose for which immunity is granted).
• Pursuing a remedy in the courts of the sending State (the diplomat's home country), if the laws of that country permit such actions.
• Seeking resolution through diplomatic channels, where the receiving State may make representations to the sending State.

Often, diplomatic missions have insurance to cover liabilities arising from traffic accidents or other incidents, and they may agree to settle claims without formal court proceedings or waiver of immunity.

---

Answer:

Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Officers

Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Officers

---

Principle of Immunity

Judges and officers acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are granted immunity from civil liability (including tort actions) for acts done or words spoken in their official capacity, even if those acts or words are alleged to be negligent, mistaken, or malicious. This immunity is grounded in public policy: the need for judges to administer justice independently, impartially, and without fear of vexatious lawsuits from disappointed litigants. Without such protection, the administration of justice would be severely hampered.

---

Position in India (Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850)

In India, the immunity of judicial officers is primarily governed by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Section 1 of this Act states:

"No Judge, Magistrate, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be arrested under civil process, or sued, in any Civil Court, for any act done or ordered by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction: Provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of."

Key aspects of this immunity:

• Who is protected: Judges, Magistrates, Collectors, and "other persons acting judicially". This extends to anyone who is required to act judicially, i.e., determine questions of law or fact and make decisions based on evidence and argument, in a manner similar to a court.
• What is protected: Any act done or ordered by them in the discharge of their "judicial duty". This means acts performed as part of the judicial process, such as hearing evidence, delivering judgments, issuing warrants or orders. It does not cover purely administrative acts they might perform.
• Scope of Protection: The immunity applies even if the act is alleged to be negligent, erroneous, or malicious. The protection is available provided the act was done in the discharge of a judicial duty.
• Jurisdiction: The protection extends even to acts outside the officer's jurisdiction, but *only if* the officer, at the time, in good faith, believed they had jurisdiction. If they knowingly act outside their jurisdiction, the immunity may not apply. The requirement is good faith belief in jurisdiction, not the actual existence of jurisdiction for the act itself.

The Act provides absolute immunity for judicial acts done within jurisdiction and conditional immunity for judicial acts done outside jurisdiction (condition being good faith belief in having jurisdiction).

---

Quasi-Judicial Officers

Bodies or individuals performing quasi-judicial functions (e.g., members of tribunals, arbitrators, certain administrative authorities conducting inquiries) also enjoy protection similar to that of judicial officers when they are performing those specific quasi-judicial duties. The extent of their immunity depends on the nature of their functions, the statute under which they operate, and whether their act was within their jurisdiction and performed judicially.

The principle is that anyone who is required by law to act judicially in deciding a matter should be protected from personal liability for errors or alleged malice in performing that specific judicial function, provided they stay within their conferred authority (or genuinely believe they are). The remedy for errors in judicial or quasi-judicial decisions lies in appeal or revision to a higher court, not in a tort action against the officer who made the decision.

---

Answer: