“DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN ENGLAND AND INDIA- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS”

Author – Neelagowri, Student at Christ (deemed to be university) Bengaluru

BEST CITATION – Neelagowri, “DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN ENGLAND AND INDIA- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 3 (1) OF 2023, PG. 772-777, ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

                According to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, a king is immune from punishment. Around the world, this idea has been widely adopted. King is above the Law. Throughout the period of and during the reign of the monarchy, this principle was created. Today, it is considered that this theory must have lost its lustre in this era of democracy where voters make or break governments. But the sad reality is that governments all across the world have opted to rely on this antiquated principle even after proclaiming democracy. According to the Rule of Law No one is above the law, in essence, sovereign immunity protects a government from being sued in its own courts without its permission. The British Common Law has established sovereign immunity. “Rex non potest peccare” or “the king can do no wrong,” is a legal principle. However, most international constitutions prohibit holding politicians accountable in the same way as regular people. The idea has its origins in the notion that the King of England, who exercised divine power, was impervious to wrongdoing. The courts would not permit a lawsuit against the king as a result, with a few carefully stated exceptions. The English colonisers later took this idea of sovereign immunity to the Indian colonies, and it eventually made its way into our legal system as well. Sovereign immunity, in its most basic definition, is the legal immunity enjoyed by governmental bodies. The writings of Bodin, Austin, and Hege provided the philosophical foundation for the early concepts of sovereign immunity. The article charts the development of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India and the UK, focusing in particular on the state’s tort responsibility. The emphasis is on using case law to draw analogies and define and explain the application and repeal of this concept.

KEYWORDS: Sovereign Immunity, State, King, India, US, Doctrine