Limitation and sovereign immunity do not protect mala fide jail-security omissions causing violation of prisoners' fundamental rights.

Article 72 of the Limitation Act applies only to compensation claims based on acts done or omitted in pursuance of an enactment and protected by bona fide statutory authority; a grossly negligent or mala fide omission falls under the residuary Article 113 instead. The note also rejects sovereign immunity for failure to provide adequate jail security, stating that prisoners retain Article 21 rights and that negligent or conspiratorial omissions by State officers cannot be treated as immune sovereign functions. The stated result is that such claims are within limitation and damages remain maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for damages was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or governed by the residuary Article 113; (ii) Whether the State could claim immunity from liability in damages on the ground that the failure to provide adequate jail security was a sovereign act.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for damages was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or governed by the residuary Article 113.

Analysis: Article 72 applies only where compensation is claimed for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an enactment and the protection is available for bona fide acts done under colour of statutory authority. Where the omission is not in pursuance of statutory duty and is tainted by mala fides or conspiracy, the shorter limitation period cannot be invoked. On the facts, the failure to provide adequate protection was held to be a grossly negligent and mala fide omission, not a bona fide act under statutory authority.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Article 72 and was governed by Article 113, and was within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could claim immunity from liability in damages on the ground that the failure to provide adequate jail security was a sovereign act.

Analysis: The doctrine of sovereign immunity was held to be inconsistent with constitutional governance where prisoners retain fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. The omission to provide reasonable and adequate security, especially where there was evidence of negligence and conspiracy, could not be treated as an immune sovereign function. The decision also rejected the continued vitality of the older immunity doctrine in cases involving tortious injury and violation of fundamental rights.

Conclusion: The State was not immune from liability and damages were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both limitation and sovereign immunity, and the decree in favour of the claimants was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mala fide omission by State officers, especially where it is not done in pursuance of statutory authority and results in violation of fundamental rights, does not attract the shorter statutory limitation and is not protected by sovereign immunity.

---