Article By: Shantanu Gupta , 1st year , BA.LLB of NMIMS (Navi Mumbai)
Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for the acts done by others. In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person for the act done by another person, may arise. In order that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be a certain kind of relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in a certain way, connected with that relationship. The common examples of such a liability are :
1. Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;
2. Liability of partners of each other’s tort;
3. Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.
The rule applies in the case of master-servant relationship. The master is vicariously liable for the wrongful act done by his servant in the course of employment. The liability of the master, of course, is in addition to that of the servant.
Master and Servant
If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the master is liable for it. The servant, of course, is also liable.
The wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be the act of the master as well.
“The doctrine of liability of the master for act of his servant is based on the maxim respondeat superior, which means let the principal be liable’ and it puts the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself. It also derives validity from the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se, which means “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself”.
Since for the wrong done by the servant, the master can also be made liable vicariously, the plaintiff has a choice to bring an action against either or both of them. Their liability is joint and several as they are considered to be joint tortfeasors. The reason for the maxim respondeat superior (let the principal be liable) seems to be the better position of the master to meet the claim because of his larger pocket and also ability to pass on the burden of liability through insurance. The liability arises even though the servant acted against the express instructions, and for no benefit of his master.
For the liability of the master to arise, the following two essentials are to be present :
(1) The tort was committed by the ‘servant’.
(2) The servant committed the tort in the ‘course of his employment.
Vicarious liability of the State
India does not have a specific law like the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 in England that clearly defines when the state can be held responsible in legal matters. Instead, Article 300 of the Constitution explains how the Union of India and state governments can be involved in lawsuits.
Here’s a breakdown in simple terms:
1. The Government of India can sue or be sued under the name “Union of India,” and state governments can do the same under their state names. They can take legal action or be taken to court just like the British government and Indian states could have done before the Constitution was created.
2. If there were any legal cases active when the Constitution started, the Union of India replaces the Dominion of India in those cases, and the corresponding state replaces the relevant province or Indian state.
3. Article 300 treats both the Union of India and state governments as legal entities (juristic persons), meaning they have the right to engage in legal actions.
4. While the Union and state governments can sue or be sued, the Constitution does not specify the exact situations in which this can happen.
In summary, Article 300 keeps the legal status from before the Constitution but allows the Parliament and state legislatures to create laws that could change how state liability works in the future.
In the case of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India[1], the plaintiff’s servant was riding in a horse-drawn carriage near the Kidderpore Dockyard in Calcutta, which belonged to the government. Due to the negligence of government workers, a heavy piece of iron fell and startled the horse, causing it to injure itself.
The plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for India for the damages caused by this incident. The court examined whether the East India Company could be held responsible by distinguishing between its sovereign (governmental) and non-sovereign (ordinary) functions. If the act was part of its sovereign duties, they wouldn’t be liable. However, since maintaining the dockyard was considered a non-sovereign function—something a private individual could do—the court held the government responsible for the damages.
State of Rajasthan v. VidyawatiDevi AIR 1962 SC 933[2]
In this case, the plaintiff’s husband was killed when a government jeep, driven recklessly by a state employee, hit him. The jeep was being taken from a workshop to the Collector’s bungalow for official use. When the plaintiff sued the State of Rajasthan, the court found the state liable for the driver’s actions. The Rajasthan High Court stated that the state should be treated like any ordinary employer and is responsible for the driver’s mistakes.
On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision and agreed with its reasoning. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, the Supreme Court pointed out that our Constitution has created a welfare state. This means that the state’s responsibilities go beyond just maintaining law and order; they include running industries, public transportation, and state trading, among other things.
Because the state is involved in so many activities and functions as an employer, it cannot claim immunity from the harm caused by its employees while they are doing their jobs. In other words, the state can be held responsible for the wrongful actions of its employees.
Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039[3]
In the case of Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court explained that if a government employee is acting under sovereign powers, the state cannot be held responsible for their actions; otherwise, it can be.
In this case, Ralia Ram, a partner in a jeweler firm from Amritsar, traveled to Meerut on September 20, 1947, to sell gold and silver. While walking through a market, police constables arrested him on suspicion of having stolen property and took him to the police station. Upon searching him, they found he was carrying 103 tolas of gold and over 2 maunds of silver. He was held in a police lock-up, and his belongings were taken into police custody.
The next day, he was released on bail, and the silver was eventually returned to him. However, the gold was kept in the police Malkhana (storage) under the care of the Head Constable, Mohammad Amir. Later, Amir stole the gold and fled to Pakistan in October 1947.
Ralia Ram sued the State of U.P. for the return of his gold or for compensation of over Rs. 11,000. The court ruled that the state was not liable because: (i) the police were acting within their legal authority, and (ii) the police’s power to store property was considered a sovereign power
[2] State of Rajasthan v. VidyawatiDevi AIR 1962 SC 933
[3] Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039
Leave a Reply