Misfeasance In Public Office: An Indian Perspective
Keywords:
misfeasance in public office, Article 32, Article 226, remedy, public law, private lawAbstract
Although misfeasance in public office is a recognized tort in Indian law, the remedies available both in public and private law have their own shortcomings. The choice litigants are required to make in most cases is between a quick and efficacious remedy available in writ proceedings or prosecution of a claim for damages before a civil court. These remedies are not exclusive but not all parties have the wherewithal to pursue their remedy in private law or better still pursue both remedies. Keeping this in mind the Supreme Court of India has rightly adopted a liberal approach in granting compensation for commission of this tort in cases of egregious violations of fundamental rights. However, the lack of a quick and efficacious remedy in private law may have emboldened the State and its officers to take actions or make omissions without impunity.
References
1. (1994) 1 SCC 243, 263 (para 10)
2. Dunlop v. Woollahara Municipal Council, [1981] 2 WLR 693, 703
3. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243
4. Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 593 and Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India , (1999) 6 SCC 667
5. Mirza Sanaulla v. The Davanagere Urban Development Authority , ILR 2010 KAR 2956
6. H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law , 10th Edn. (2009), Oxford, p. 668
7. (1996) 3 All ER 558 JLTCPL (2020) 20–24 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 24
8. Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England, (2000) 3 All ER 1
9. (1999) 6 SCC 667, 723 (para 97)
10. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Law of Torts 27th Edn. (2016), LexisNexis, p. 350
11. (1983) 4 SCC 141
12. (1985) 4 SCC 677
13. (1989) 4 SCC 730
14. (1993) 2 SCC 746
15. (1999) 6 SCC 667, 706 -710 (paras 54, 55 and 65)
16. (1996) 6 SCC 530; and (1996) 6 SCC 593
17. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1039
18. S. 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
19. Fourteenth Report (September, 1958); Twenty-Seventh Report (December, 1964); and Fifty-Fourth Report (February, 1973)
20. Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, AIR 1964 SC 1419
21. 2 Ld Raym 938; 1 Smith’s LC (13th ed), 253 Cite this Article Rhythm Buaria . Misfeasance in Public Office: An Indian Perspective . Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law. 2020; 3(2): 20–24p.
