1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement that the rule "Crown was not answerable for tort committed by its servant" has never been applied in India is not entirely accurate. Historically, during the British colonial period and even for some time after independence, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, derived from the English common law maxim 'The King can do no wrong,' did influence Indian jurisprudence regarding the state's liability for torts committed by its servants. However, over time, Indian courts have progressively narrowed its application, eventually leading to its near-total abrogation, especially for non-sovereign functions.

Initially, the P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. case (1861) introduced a distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. The state was held immune for torts committed in the exercise of sovereign functions (e.g., defense, administration of justice) but liable for torts committed in the exercise of non-sovereign or commercial functions. This distinction created significant challenges and often led to injustice for victims.

Post-independence, the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 300, provided that the Government of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued in relation to their affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if the Constitution had not been enacted. This provision essentially continued the pre-existing position, including the sovereign immunity doctrine to some extent.

However, the judiciary, recognizing the need for a welfare state to be accountable, gradually eroded this immunity. The trend has been towards holding the state liable for the tortious acts of its servants, bringing it on par with private employers, especially in cases where the act is not a purely sovereign function that cannot be delegated to a private individual.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Article 300 of the Indian Constitution: Deals with suits and proceedings by or against the Government of India and the Governments of States, providing the constitutional basis for state liability.
• Common Law Principles: The law of torts in India is largely uncodified and relies on common law principles, which have been adapted and evolved by Indian courts.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1861) 5 Bom. H.C.R. App. 1: This landmark pre-independence case established the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. It held that the East India Company (and by extension, the Crown) was liable for torts committed by its servants in the exercise of non-sovereign functions (e.g., commercial activities) but immune for sovereign acts.
• Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039: This case reaffirmed the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction. The Supreme Court held that the state was not liable for the negligence of its police officers in seizing and retaining gold, as it was considered an act in the exercise of sovereign power. This judgment faced significant criticism for perpetuating an outdated doctrine.
• State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933: In contrast to Kasturi Lal, this case held the state liable for the tortious act of its servant (a driver) who caused an accident while driving a government jeep for official duty. The court found that driving a jeep was not a sovereign function, thus making the state liable.
• N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P., AIR 1994 SC 2663: This case marked a significant shift. The Supreme Court severely restricted the scope of sovereign immunity, stating that the state is liable for the tortious acts of its servants unless the act is a 'purely sovereign' function that cannot be delegated to private individuals. This judgment effectively dismantled much of the traditional sovereign immunity doctrine.

4. Clear Conclusion: The statement that the rule of Crown immunity for torts has never been applied in India is incorrect. It was applied, albeit with modifications, for a considerable period. However, the Indian judiciary has progressively and significantly curtailed this doctrine, moving towards a position where the state is largely held liable for the torts of its servants, especially in the context of a modern welfare state. The trend in India has been to align with the principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' (where there is a right, there is a remedy), ensuring greater accountability of the state and providing redress to victims of state-inflicted wrongs.