The statement reflects the modern jurisprudential trend regarding the vicarious liability of the State in India, particularly challenging the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity. Vicarious liability generally means that one person is held responsible for the acts of another, typically in a master-servant relationship, where the servant acts in the course of employment. When applied to the State, it implies that the government can be held liable for the tortious acts or negligence of its employees.

Historical Context: Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity Historically, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, derived from the English common law maxim 'the King can do no wrong,' shielded the State from liability for the tortious acts of its servants. In India, this doctrine was adopted through the Government of India Act, 1858, and later continued under Article 300 of the Constitution, which allows the Government of India and the Government of a State to sue or be sued in relation to their affairs, but subject to any law made by Parliament or the State Legislature. In the absence of such a law, the position existing immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (i.e., the position of the East India Company) was to apply.

The P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. Case (1861): This landmark case established the distinction between 'sovereign' and 'non-sovereign' functions. It held that the East India Company (and subsequently the State) would be liable for torts committed by its servants in the exercise of 'non-sovereign' or 'commercial' functions, but not for acts done in the exercise of 'sovereign' functions (e.g., defence, administration of justice, maintenance of law and order).

Evolution and Dilution of Sovereign Immunity in India: Post-independence, Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, began to critically re-examine and progressively dilute the doctrine of sovereign immunity, recognizing the need for the State to be accountable to its citizens in a welfare state. The 'no immunity can be claimed' part of the statement signifies this shift.

1. Vidyawati v. State of Rajasthan (1962): This was a significant departure. The Supreme Court held the State liable for the negligent driving of a government jeep by its employee while on official duty. The Court observed that the old distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions was no longer relevant in a modern welfare state, especially when the act was not directly related to the exercise of sovereign power.

2. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965): This case, while often cited, is now largely seen as an anomaly or a step backward. The Supreme Court, in this instance, upheld sovereign immunity, holding that the State was not liable for the negligence of its police officers in seizing and misplacing gold, as the act was done in the exercise of sovereign powers (maintenance of law and order). This judgment faced considerable criticism for its narrow interpretation and has been largely distinguished or diluted by subsequent rulings.

3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): This case marked a pivotal shift. The Supreme Court awarded compensation for custodial death, emphasizing that the State cannot claim sovereign immunity when there is a violation of fundamental rights (Article 21 – right to life and personal liberty). The Court introduced the concept of 'public law remedy' for constitutional torts, asserting that the State's liability for such violations is absolute and not subject to the defence of sovereign immunity.

4. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990): Similar to Nilabati Behera, the Court awarded compensation for the death of a child due to police brutality, holding the State vicariously liable and rejecting the plea of sovereign immunity.

5. Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (1999): The Supreme Court reiterated that the State is liable for the negligence of its officers, even if the acts are performed in the discharge of sovereign functions, especially when fundamental rights are infringed.

Conclusion: The modern position in India is that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been significantly curtailed. While a complete abolition has not occurred through legislation, judicial pronouncements have progressively narrowed its scope. The State is increasingly held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its functionaries, even when those acts are performed in the purported exercise of sovereign functions, particularly when they lead to the violation of fundamental rights or involve gross negligence. The emphasis is now on State accountability and providing effective remedies to citizens for wrongs committed by government servants, aligning with the principles of a democratic welfare state where the rule of law prevails and no entity, including the State, is above the law.