Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das
Supreme Court of India · 28 January 2000 · 2 judges
The Union of India was held liable under public law to compensate a Bangladeshi national gang-raped by men including railway employees in a railway building, because Article 21 protects non-citizens and running railways is a commercial, not sovereign, activity.
Facts
A Bangladeshi woman waiting at Howrah Railway Station to travel to Ajmer was taken to a room in the Railways' Yatri Niwas and gang-raped by several men, including railway employees. Mrs. Chandrima Das, a practising advocate of the Calcutta High Court, filed a petition under Article 226 against railway, State and police authorities, claiming compensation for the victim and other reliefs, including directions to eradicate anti-social and criminal activities at Howrah Station. The High Court awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation, holding that the rape was committed in a railway building by railway employees. The Railway Board and others appealed, contending that the remedy lay in private law, that the advocate had no locus standi, that a foreign national could not claim fundamental rights, and that the Union was not vicariously liable for rape by its employees.
Questions before the Court
- Can compensation for the rape be awarded in proceedings under Article 226, or must the victim sue for damages in private law?
- Did a practising advocate unconnected with the victim have locus standi to file the petition?
- Can a foreign national claim the protection of Article 21?
- Is the Union of India vicariously liable for the acts of railway employees who committed the offence?
What the Court held
- Where public functionaries are involved and the matter concerns violation of fundamental rights or enforcement of public duties, a public law remedy under Article 226 is available even though a suit for damages could be filed. Rape violates the right to life with dignity under Article 21.
- The petition, which also sought directions to eradicate criminal activities at Howrah Station, was in truth filed in public interest, and the advocate could maintain it.
- Articles 20, 21 and 22 are available to 'persons', including non-citizens. A foreign national in India is entitled to protection of life and to live with human dignity under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the security of the State.
- Running the Railways and the Yatri Niwas is a commercial activity, not an exercise of sovereign power, so the Union can be held vicariously liable for torts of its employees; Kasturi Lal could not be pressed in aid. The appeal was dismissed and the compensation directed to be paid through the High Commissioner for Bangladesh.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that Article 21 extends to non-citizens and that the State is under a constitutional liability to compensate a foreign national whose right to life was violated by its employees. It confirms that compensation can be awarded under public law in writ proceedings, draws on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in giving 'life' in Article 21 its meaning for non-citizens, and confines the sovereign immunity defence of Kasturi Lal by treating the running of railways as a commercial activity.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law.”
“On this principle, even those who are not citizens of this country and come here merely as tourists or in any other capacity will be entitled to the protection of their lives in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. They also have a right to "Life" in this country. Thus, they also have the right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity. Just as the State is under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen in this country, so also the State is under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizens.”
“Running of Railways is a commercial activity. Establishing Yatri Niwas at various Railway Stations to provide lodging and boarding facilities to passengers on payment of charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of Sovereign power.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)“it was held that the Govt. will be vicariously liable for the tortious act of its employees.” (page 12)
- Distinguishes Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)“Kasturi Lal's decision, therefore, cannot be pressed in aid.” (page 13)
- Follows Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)“this Court awarded compensation under Public Law domain in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa” (page 5)
- Follows People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)“In People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1473 = (1982) 3 SCC 235, it was laid down that Public Interest Litigation could be initiated not only by filing formal petitions in the High Court but even by sending letters and telegrams” (page 6)
Case and bench
- Parties
- The Chairman, Railway Board v. Mrs. Chandrima Das
- Case
- Appeal by special leave from the Calcutta High Court (number not printed in the file)
- Decided
- 28 January 2000
- Bench
- R.P. Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmad
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment delivered by S. Saghir Ahmad, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.