Discuss the vicarious or tortious liability of state for the act of his servant. Refer relevant Judgements.

When a case of Government liability in tort comes before the courts, the question is whether the particular Government activity, which gave rise to the tort, was the sovereign function or non-sovereign function. If it is a sovereign function it could claim immunity from the tortuous liability, otherwise not. Generally, the activities of commercial nature or those which can be carried out by the private individual are termed as non-sovereign functions. The first important case involving the tortious liability of the State was raised in the pre-independence era P. and O. Steam Navigation v. Secretary of State for India (5 Bom HCR App 1) . The question referred to the Supreme Court was whether the Secretary of State for India is liable for the damages caused by the negligence of the servants in the service of the Government. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative. The Court pointed out the principle of law that the Secretary of State for India in Council is liable for the damages occasioned by the negligence of Government servants, if the negligence is such as would render an ordinary employer liable. According to the principle laid down in this case the Secretary of State can be liable only for acts of non-sovereign nature, liability will not accrue for sovereign acts. The Court admitted the distinction between the sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the government and said that here was a great and clear distinction between acts done in exercise of what are termed sovereign powers, and acts done in the conduct of undertakings which might be carried on by private individuals without having such powers delegated to them.