Property, Contracts, and Liabilities of the Union and States
Articles 294–300 of the Indian Constitution
The Articles 294 to 300 in Part XII of the Indian Constitution outline the rules concerning property, contracts, legal rights, liabilities, and governmental obligations. These provisions establish the Union of India and the States as juristic legal entities, ensuring clarity in ownership, succession, and suits filed by or against the government—an important area for students of polity preparing for competitive exams.
Property, Contracts and Liabilities of the Union and States under Indian Constitution 1950
Establishing the legal framework for the Union and States to function as juristic personalities within the Indian legal system.
The transition from a colonial administration to a sovereign democratic republic required clear constitutional mandates for the transfer of assets and the assumption of legal responsibilities.
(i) Comprehensive mapping of the legal identity of the Union of India and various States.
(ii) Transition of rights and obligations from the Dominion of India to the modern Republic.
(iii) Clarification of the executive power regarding property acquisition and business trade.
Property of the Union and States: Ownership and Acquisition
The Constitution provides a detailed mechanism for how the government holds, inherits, and acquires property across the nation.
Succession of Property and Liabilities in Post-Independence India
The dawn of the Constitution saw a massive transfer of wealth and debt. All properties and assets of the Dominion of India, provinces, or princely states before the Constitution’s commencement were transferred to the Union or respective state governments. This ensured a seamless legal continuity between the old regime and the new sovereign state.
(i) The rights, liabilities, and obligations of earlier colonial governments automatically became those of the Government of India or the concerned state.
(ii) Legal succession prevents any vacuum in governmental responsibility toward its citizens.
(iii) Assets include everything from land and buildings to financial reserves held by the Provinces.
The Principles of Escheat, Lapse, and Bona Vacantia
Under Indian law, the state acts as the ultimate owner of unclaimed assets. Property without rightful heirs (escheat), property lost due to disuse (lapse), or property without owners (bona vacantia) vests in the state if located there, and otherwise in the Union. In all three cases, the property goes to the government due to absence of a legitimate claimant.
(i) Escheat applies when an individual dies intestate without any legal heirs.
(ii) Bona Vacantia refers to "vacant goods" that have no apparent owner.
(iii) These principles ensure that valuable land and goods remain within the public domain rather than falling into legal limbo.
Sea-Wealth and Maritime Resources of the Indian Republic
India’s geographical position grants it vast resources beneath the waves. All minerals, lands, and valuable resources under India’s territorial waters, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone belong exclusively to the Union. This centralizes control over critical natural resources for national development.
Specific Maritime Zone Limits
(i) Territorial waters extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coast.
(ii) The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) stretches 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
(iii) Resources in these zones are protected and managed by the Union Government.
Compulsory Acquisition of Property and Constitutional Protections
The state possesses the power of 'Eminent Domain', allowing it to take private property for public use. Both Parliament and State Legislatures may pass laws for compulsory property acquisition. However, following the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, the general obligation to compensate was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights, though it survives in specific scenarios.
(a) Acquisition of property of minority educational institutions requires fair compensation to maintain their character.
(b) Acquisition of agricultural land within statutory ceiling limits under personal cultivation must be compensated at market value.
Acquisition under Executive Power and Trade Engagement
The government is not just a regulator but also an actor in the economy. The Union or States may acquire, hold, and dispose of property under executive power. They may also engage in trade, commerce, or business across state boundaries, functioning as a participant in the market.
(i) Power to enter into commercial transactions is inherent to the executive branch.
(ii) This allows for the establishment of Public Sector Undertakings and government-run industries.
Suits by or Against the Government: Article 300
Article 300 allows the Union of India and States to sue or be sued in their official names, establishing them as legal entities for judicial proceedings. This ensures that the government is accountable before the law just like any other person.
Names of the Parties in Judicial Proceedings
The Constitution specifies how the government must be addressed in courtrooms to maintain legal consistency.
(i) The Union can sue/be sued as Union of India.
(ii) States can do so as State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Uttar Pradesh, etc.
(iii) This continuity of liability extends from the pre-Constitution era involving the Dominion of India and former Provinces.
Government Liability for Contracts and Mandatory Conditions
While the government can enter into contracts, it must follow strict formal requirements to ensure transparency. Failure to meet these conditions renders the contract null and void. The President, Governor, and officers executing contracts are personally immune, but the government remains contractually liable.
(i) Contracts must be made in the name of the President or Governor.
(ii) They must be executed on behalf of these high authorities.
(iii) Execution must be performed by specifically authorised persons.
Government Liability for Torts and the Evolution of Sovereign Immunity
The history of state liability for civil wrongs (torts) has evolved from colonial-era immunity to modern accountability. Initially, the East India Company was immune from liability for sovereign functions but liable for its trading activities. This distinction was upheld in the P & O Steam Navigation Company case (1861) and the Kasturilal case (1965).
The Modern Judicial Shift Towards Accountability
(i) The Supreme Court gradually diluted the doctrine of immunity in cases such as Nagendra Rao (1994), Common Cause (1999), and Prisoner’s Murder case (2000).
(ii) These rulings stressed that the State cannot escape liability in a modern welfare state.
Core Supreme Court Observations on State Liability
The judiciary has redefined the relationship between the state and the citizen regarding negligence and harm caused by public servants.
(i) No civilised system can allow the State to act above the law; negligent acts of officers must invite compensation.
(ii) The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is considered outdated in contemporary law.
(iii) In a welfare state, government duties extend beyond defence or justice to social, economic, and political regulation.
(iv) Only core functions like justice, law and order, and crime repression retain some level of immunity.
Summary of Property and Liability Provisions
Understanding Articles 294 to 300 is vital for grasping how the Indian state operates as a legal person. By defining property rights, contractual obligations, and tortious liability, the Constitution ensures that the Union of India and States remain accountable. For students, mastering these concepts and the landmark Supreme Court cases is essential for excelling in polity and law-related examinations.
