Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance ... vs Mahadevi S/O Sharanappa Madar And Ors on 15 February, 2018
In the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India [AIR 1990 SC 1480]
"100. In this connection, the concept of
'parens patriae' in jurisprudence may be
examined. It was contended by the learned
Attorney General that the State had taken
upon itself this onus to effectively come in as
parens patriae. We have noted the long
line of Indian decisions where, though in
different contexts, the concept of State as the
parent of people who are not quite able to or
competent to fight for their rights or assert
their rights, have been utilised. It was
contended that the doctrine of parens
patriae cannot be applicable to the victims.
How the concept has been understood in this
country as well as in America has been
noted. Legal dictionaries have been referred
to as noted before. It was asserted on behalf
of thevictims by learned Counsel that the
concept of 'parens patriae' can never be
invoked for the purpose of suits in domestic
jurisdiction of any country. This can only be
applied in respect of the claims out of the
13
country in foreign jurisdiction. It was
further contended that this concept of 'parens
patraie' can only be applied in case of
persons who are under disability and would
not be applicable in respect of those who are
able to assert their own rights. It is true that
victims or their representatives are sui generis
and cannot as such due to age, mental
capacity or other reason not legally incapable
for suing or pursuing the remedies for the
rights yet they are at a tremendous
disadvantage in the broader and
comprehensive sense of the term. These
victims cannot be considered to be any match
to the multinational companies or the Govt.
with whom in the conditions that the victims
or their representatives were after the
disaster physically, mentally, financially,
economically and also because of the position
of litigation would have to contend. In such a
situation of predicament the victims can
legitimately be considered to be disabled.
They were in no position by themselves to
look after their own interests effectively or
purposefully. In that background, they are
14
people who needed the State's protection
and should come within the umbrella of
State's sovereignty to assert, establish and
maintain their rights against the wrong doers
in this mass disaster."