Supreme Court Rules State Liable for Tortious Acts of Employees Outside Sovereign Functions
Landmark Judgment Affirms Vicarious Liability of State Under Article 300 of Constitution, Dismissing State of Rajasthan’s Claim to Immunity
In a significant ruling dated February 2, 1962, the Supreme Court of India upheld the vicarious liability of the State of Rajasthan for the tortious acts committed by its employee, holding that the State is liable for such acts committed within the scope of employment, provided they are dissociated from sovereign functions. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B.P. Sinha.
The case arose from a tragic incident in February 1952 when Lokumal, a temporary government driver employed by the State of Rajasthan, negligently drove a government jeep and fatally injured Jagdishlal, a pedestrian in Udaipur. Jagdishlal’s widow and minor daughter sued both Lokumal and the State for damages. While the trial court initially absolved the State of liability, the Rajasthan High Court reversed that decision and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000 against the State. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) due to the importance of the legal question involved.
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the State could claim immunity from tort liability under Article 300 of the Constitution, which deals with the State’s ability to sue or be sued. The State contended that it was not liable because the tortious act occurred while the vehicle was used in connection with sovereign functions and that the State’s liability under Article 300 was limited to what the corresponding Indian State would have faced before the Constitution.
The Court rejected these contentions on multiple grounds. It clarified that the negligent act was wholly dissociated from the exercise of sovereign powers since the vehicle was merely being driven back from a workshop and was not engaged in any sovereign activity at the time. Further, the Court traced the historical evolution of the State’s liability back to the era of the East India Company, highlighting that the Company itself was liable for the torts of its servants and that the Crown’s immunity rule, based on outdated notions of sovereign infallibility, never applied in India.
The Court emphasized that the liability of the State is akin to that of an ordinary employer for torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment. It observed that the Constitution’s republican framework and the establishment of a welfare state with wide-ranging activities preclude any blanket immunity for the State. The judgment also noted that while the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 abolished sovereign immunity in the UK, India had long recognized State liability for torts prior to the Constitution.
Rejecting the State’s plea that the liability must be judged by the position of the Rajasthan Union before the Constitution, the Court held that no positive law or common law principle exempted the Rajasthan Union from liability. The Court found no merit in the State’s appeal and dismissed it with costs, thereby affirming the High Court’s decision.
This landmark ruling reinforces that the State in India is accountable for tortious acts of its employees committed within the scope of employment, except when done in the exercise of sovereign functions. It clarifies the scope of Article 300 of the Constitution and aligns India’s law with principles of justice and public interest, underscoring the State’s responsibility in a modern welfare democracy.
Statutory provisions:- Constitution of India, 1950 Article 300, Government of India Act, 1858 Section 65, Government of India Act, 1915 Section 32, Government of India Act, 1935 Section 176, Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (UK) Section 2(1)
State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 81080
