Article 300 of the Indian Constitution- tortious liability
The liability of the state is defined by the legal maxim " Res Non- Potest Peccare" which means the king can do no wrong. This was used to be followed since the king was considered as the son of the God, but today is not the medieval times, on today's time government can be sued in the court for the wrongful acts of its employee. The Article 300 says about the specific which is the union of Indian or the government of state can sue and be sued like any ordinary person. In pervious this article came in effect in 1950 that is after the adaption of the constitution. Having the Similar provision present under Article 176 of the government of India Act 1935 and also h der Article 35 and 65 in the government of India Act 1915 and in 1858 respect.
The has its tortious liability and where should be applied it has been in the case peninsular and oriental steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of the state for India, in this case the state was made Liable because the wrong act which was performed that was not related to sovereign function. So, in this case it was firstly differentiated on sovereign and non- sovereign.
Sovereign function means the function state for which the state is not liable under any provision for the wrongful acts of its employees. For example, functions important activity like defence activities, preserving armed forces, maintaining peace and war, diplomacy is some of the sovereign functions for which the state is not liable.
Non-Sovereign functions - all functions other than the Sovereign Functions. If a state works a lot, it means that it only provides defence it also provides there is state police, state electricity board, more this activity if any employee of the state does some wrong then the state will not get any immunity of it.
In case of state of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati in case there was a driver hit another by driving the car made an accident due to which the person died. In this the car driver was from the government worker and the widow of (died person) filed a case on the driver through that case get filled also against the state of Rajasthan sine the driver was the state employee so the state will also be responsible, so through driver the widow asked for compensation from the state government of Rajasthan.
The court also agreed to the compensation told to be given to the widow, reason to grant the compensation, Supreme Court said "In this connection, it has to be remembered that under the Constitution, we have established a welfare State, whose functions are not confined only to maintaining law and order, but extend to engaging in all activities including industry, public transport, State trading to name only a few of them. In so far as the State activities have such wide ramifications involving not only the use of sovereign powers but also its powers as employers in so many public sectors, it is too much to claim that the State should be immune from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such." So, the immunity was not given to the state.