Victorian Doctrine – “The King can do no wrong”

The Victorian Doctrine of “The King can do no wrong” is a fundamental principle of British constitutional and administrative law, originating from the political philosophy of the monarchy in the 17th and 18th centuries and reaching its full expression during the Victorian era. The doctrine asserts that the sovereign (the King or Queen), as the head of state, cannot be held personally liable or legally accountable for acts of the government or for any alleged wrongdoing.
This principle reflects the notion of sovereign immunity, meaning that the monarch cannot be prosecuted or sued in their own courts. While rooted in monarchical absolutism, the doctrine evolved within the British constitutional framework to accommodate the rise of constitutional monarchy, parliamentary sovereignty, and ministerial responsibility.

Historical Background

The doctrine traces its origins to medieval England, when the monarch was considered the source of justice and law. Since the King was believed to embody the state and personify justice, it was considered contradictory for the law to act against its own fountainhead. Hence, the King could do no wrong, because:

1. He was the source of justice, and therefore could not be unjust.
2. He was the source of law, and could not be seen as violating it.

The idea gained prominence during the Tudor and Stuart periods, when monarchs ruled with considerable authority. However, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689), the doctrine began to take a more constitutional form. It no longer meant that the monarch was infallible or beyond scrutiny, but rather that the King’s government — represented by ministers — would bear the responsibility for all official acts done in the monarch’s name.
During the Victorian period (1837–1901), under Queen Victoria’s reign, the principle became a cornerstone of the British constitutional monarchy. Although the monarch remained immune from legal proceedings, the doctrine evolved into a symbolic and constitutional fiction: the monarch “could do no wrong” because the government would never allow wrong to be done in the monarch’s name.

Meaning and Essence of the Doctrine

The phrase “The King can do no wrong” carries two principal meanings:

1. The King is Legally Infallible: The monarch, as the embodiment of the state, cannot be sued in his or her own courts without consent. This reflects the doctrine of Crown immunity, under which no legal proceedings can be initiated against the sovereign without royal permission (granted through a petition of right or statutory waiver).
2. The King is Politically Irresponsible: The monarch is not personally accountable for the actions of the government. The ministers, acting in the monarch’s name, are responsible to Parliament and the people. This forms the foundation of ministerial responsibility, ensuring that political accountability rests with the elected government rather than the hereditary ruler.

Thus, the doctrine serves both a legal and a political function — preserving the dignity and inviolability of the sovereign while simultaneously ensuring governmental accountability through elected representatives.

Constitutional Development and Practical Application

Over time, the Victorian Doctrine evolved alongside the British constitutional system, which became increasingly parliamentary and democratic. The monarch retained formal powers but exercised them only on the advice of ministers.
Key Developments:

1. Ministerial Responsibility: Every act of the monarch must be countersigned by a minister, who assumes responsibility for it. Hence, if “the King does wrong,” the minister bears the blame. This ensures accountability while preserving the monarch’s neutrality.
2. Royal Immunity in Law: The sovereign cannot be sued or prosecuted in criminal or civil courts. However, the Crown as a corporate entity may be subject to proceedings under certain statutes, such as the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which allowed suits against government departments in some circumstances.
3. Constitutional Monarchy: By the Victorian era, the monarch had become a ceremonial figurehead. The phrase “The King can do no wrong” thus came to signify that the monarch acts only on advice, and such advice is politically responsible to Parliament.

Legal Aspects of the Doctrine

In the legal sense, the doctrine underlines the concept of sovereign immunity, which includes two main facets:

1. Immunity from Civil Suits: The monarch cannot be sued without consent. Earlier, subjects seeking redress against the Crown had to file a petition of right, which began with the phrase “Let right be done” — an explicit permission by the monarch to proceed with the case.
2. Immunity from Criminal Prosecution: The sovereign is beyond criminal law, as the courts are deemed to act in the name of the Crown. Thus, it would be legally illogical for the monarch to prosecute themselves.
3. Crown Proceedings Act (1947): This landmark legislation in the United Kingdom permitted certain civil proceedings against the Crown for contracts, torts, and negligence, marking a shift towards administrative accountability while maintaining the monarch’s personal immunity.

Political Implications

The political meaning of the Victorian Doctrine is equally significant. It forms the theoretical foundation for responsible government, a central feature of modern democracies influenced by the Westminster model.

• The monarch “reigns but does not rule.”
• The government rules in the monarch’s name but is answerable to Parliament.
• Ministers must defend the acts of the Crown; if wrong is done, the ministry resigns or is dismissed.

Thus, while the sovereign remains immune from personal blame or prosecution, the principle ensures political accountability through representative institutions.

The Doctrine in Modern Times

Although rooted in monarchical absolutism, the doctrine has undergone considerable transformation. In contemporary constitutional monarchies, the phrase “The King can do no wrong” is largely a legal fiction rather than a practical rule.
Modern Interpretation:

• The doctrine now implies that the monarch must act on ministerial advice, and therefore cannot be blamed for governmental actions.
• The monarch’s personal immunity continues, but accountability for the acts of state lies with the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
• In most Commonwealth countries following the Westminster system — including India, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — the concept of sovereign immunity exists in modified statutory forms.

For example: In India, the President, as the head of state, enjoys immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution, which states that the President or Governor “shall not be answerable to any court” for the exercise of their powers. This provision mirrors the British doctrine but adapts it to a republican and democratic framework.

Criticisms of the Doctrine

While historically important, the Victorian Doctrine has been criticised on several grounds:

1. Contrary to Rule of Law: The idea that the King cannot be wrong undermines the principle that everyone is equal before the law. It grants the sovereign legal privileges inconsistent with modern democratic ideals.
2. Obsolete in Modern Democracies: As monarchs no longer exercise real political power, personal immunity appears unnecessary and symbolic.
3. Limited Accountability: The doctrine’s focus on ministerial responsibility sometimes creates ambiguity about personal culpability, especially in complex administrative actions.
4. Legal Fiction: Critics argue that the concept is merely a constitutional fiction maintained for ceremonial continuity rather than practical governance.

Despite these criticisms, the doctrine remains a symbolic cornerstone of constitutional monarchy, embodying both continuity and restraint within Britain’s unwritten constitution.

Contemporary Relevance

In the modern era, the Victorian Doctrine continues to serve an important constitutional and ceremonial role:

• It preserves the dignity and neutrality of the Crown.
• It reinforces the doctrine of ministerial responsibility — the hallmark of parliamentary democracy.
• It reflects the evolution of monarchy from a source of power to a symbol of unity and stability.

Thus, while the literal interpretation of the phrase “The King can do no wrong” no longer holds, its constitutional essence — that the sovereign remains above politics and beyond legal controversy — continues to define the relationship between the monarchy, government, and law.