An analysis on Vidhyawati V State of Rajasthan in the context of Tortious Liability of State
The case of State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (1962 AIR 933) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly altered the landscape of the State's tortious liability. The Court held that the State is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees, even when such acts are not connected to sovereign functions. This decision marked a departure from the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity, aligning with the principles of justice and accountability in a welfare state.
š§¾ Case Summary
Facts:
On February 11, 1952, Lokumal, a temporary motor driver employed by the State of Rajasthan, was driving a government jeep (No. RUM 49) back from a workshop to the Collector's residence in Udaipur. While driving along a public road, he knocked down Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath. Jagdishlal sustained severe injuries, including fractures to the skull and backbone, and succumbed to his injuries three days later.
Jagdishlal's widow, Mst. Vidhyawati, and his minor daughter filed a suit against both Lokumal and the State of Rajasthan, seeking compensation of ā¹25,000. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte against Lokumal and dismissed it against the State. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the appeal, holding the State liable and awarding ā¹15,000 in damages. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Whether the State is liable for tortious acts committed by its employees under Article 300 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the act of driving the jeep was a sovereign function, thereby exempting the State from liability.
āļø Supreme Court's Judgment
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the High Court's ruling and clarified several important aspects:
Sovereign Immunity Doctrine Not Applicable:
The Court rejected the common law principle that "the King can do no wrong," which traditionally shielded the State from liability. It emphasized that in a republic like India, governed by the Constitution, such immunity is not applicable.
State's Liability Under Article 300:
Article 300(1) of the Constitution allows the State to sue and be sued in its own name. The Court interpreted this provision to mean that the State is liable for torts committed by its servants, irrespective of whether the act was part of a sovereign function.
Scope of Employment:
The Court held that the State is vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment. In this case, driving the jeep, even though not a sovereign function, was within the scope of Lokumal's duties as a driver.
Distinction Between Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions:
The Court made a clear distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. It held that activities like driving a government vehicle for official purposes are non-sovereign and do not attract immunity.
š Case Law Analysis
1. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1868):
This English case established the principle that the Crown is not liable for torts committed by its servants. However, the Supreme Court in Vidhyawati's case departed from this principle, aligning with the Indian context where the State is accountable for its servants' actions.
2. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954):
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State could be sued for the recovery of arrears of salary, indicating a move towards recognizing the State's liability in civil matters.
3. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965):
The Court held that the State is not liable for the tortious acts of its police officers committed during the exercise of sovereign functions. This case reaffirmed the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
4. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983):
The Court awarded compensation to a person who was illegally detained, emphasizing the State's responsibility for the actions of its officers and the need for accountability.
5. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993):
The Court held that the State is liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, even in cases of custodial death, reinforcing the principle of State accountability.
š§ Implications and Conclusion
The Vidhyawati case marked a significant shift in the legal landscape, establishing that the State is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees, irrespective of whether such acts are related to sovereign functions. This decision aligns with the principles of justice and accountability in a welfare state, ensuring that citizens have recourse against the State for wrongful acts committed by its servants.
This case has paved the way for subsequent judgments that further define and expand the scope of the State's liability, reinforcing the notion that the State, like any other employer, must bear responsibility for the actions of its employees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments