Unit V · Topic 7Tortious liability of the State – Previous Year Questions

7 previous year questions on Tortious liability of the State from UGC NET Law papers (2013–2017), including 2 assertion–reason questions. The correct option is marked in green.

Questions

7 questions

September 2016 – PAPER 2Sequence / order

Arrange the following cases in chronological order:

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati

State of Gujarat v. Memon Mohamed

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar

Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji

Codes:

  1. (a)(1), (2), (3) and (4)
  2. (b)(1), (2), (4) and (3)
  3. (c)(4), (3), (1) and (2)
  4. (d)(4), (2), (3) and (1)✓
Answer & explanation

Correct Answer: (d)

Explanation:

Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji (1882)

State of Gujarat v. Memon Mohamed (1967)

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

Chronological sequence → (4), (2), (3), (1).

June 2013 – Paper 2

In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court of India give the ruling that sovereign immunity of the State is subject to the Fundamental Rights?

  1. (a)Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.
  2. (b)State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
  3. (c)People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar✓
  4. (d)Shyam Sundar v. State of Rajasthan
Answer & explanation

Answer: (c) People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar

December 2014 – PAPER 2

Which of the following is NOT a sovereign function of the State?

  1. (a)Construction of a military road
  2. (b)Injury to the plaintiff during lathi-charge by police to disperse an unlawful crowd
  3. (c)A government jeep being taken from the workshop to the collector’s bungalow for his use✓
  4. (d)Distribution of meals to army personnel
Answer & explanation

Answer: (c) A government jeep being taken from the workshop to the collector’s bungalow for his use

Explanation: Sovereign functions are those performed by the State in exercise of sovereign power, like defense, police, and law enforcement. In Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965), the Supreme Court held that maintenance of a government jeep for a collector’s personal use is not a sovereign function.

December 2015 – PAPER 2

In which case was it held by the Supreme Court that the state was not liable on the ground that police were acting in discharge of statutory power, and the power of the police in keeping property in the police Malkhana was a sovereign power?

  1. (a)Ramawati Kaur v. State of Bihar
  2. (b)Radha Aggarwal v. State of U.P.
  3. (c)Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.✓
  4. (d)State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Prasad
Answer & explanation

Answer: (c) Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC)

Explanation:

The Supreme Court held that the State was not liable for the negligence of police officials while keeping seized property in the Malkhana. This was because the police were exercising sovereign functions, which provides immunity from tortious liability.

The police officers failed to observe the provisions of U.P. Police Regulations in taking care of the gold seized. The injury was committed by employees of the State during the course of employment, but the employment was in the special category of sovereign power. The claim was held unsustainable.

July 2016 – PAPER 2

This was held by the Supreme Court in:

  1. (a)Mohammad Murad v. Govt. of U.P.
  2. (b)Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.✓
  3. (c)State of U.P. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
  4. (d)State of U.P. v. Tulsiram
Answer & explanation

Answer: (b) Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.

Explanation:

In Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965), the Supreme Court held that when State employees acted within the domain of sovereign functions, the State was not liable in tort. The seized property (gold) was lost due to negligence, but the State escaped liability as the act was sovereign in nature.

September 2016 – PAPER 2Assertion–Reason

Assertion (A): In vicarious liability, a master is held liable for negligence of his servant in the course of employment.

Reason (R): A Municipal Corporation cannot be held liable for the negligence of its servant while driving a vehicle belonging to the Corporation in course of its business.

Codes:

  1. (a)Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
  2. (b)Both (A) and (R) are correct but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
  3. (c)(A) is correct, but (R) is wrong✓
  4. (d)(A) is wrong, but (R) is correct
Answer & explanation

Correct Answer: (c)

Explanation:

Rule: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant done in the course of employment.

Exception: Municipal Corporations can also be held liable for negligent acts of their employees.

Therefore, (A) is correct but (R) is wrong.

January 2017 – PAPER 2Assertion–Reason

Assertion (A): Acts of state are directed against another sovereign state or its sovereign personally or its subjects.

Reason (R): Acts of executive Government in the name of President in normal course of administration are acts of state and are not open to judicial scrutiny.

Codes:

  1. (a)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
  2. (b)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
  3. (c)(A) is true, but (R) is false✓
  4. (d)(A) is false, but (R) is true
Answer & explanation

Correct Answer: (c)

Explanation:

An Act of State applies against another sovereign or its subjects.

But executive acts of government done in President’s name are subject to judicial review.

Hence, (A) is true but (R) is false.

The Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Definitions, Consumer Rights And Redressal Mechanism

← Back to all units All topics of Unit V