Law Maker

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati

Supreme Court of India · 2 February 1962 · 5 judges · 1962 AIR 933; 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 989

The State of Rajasthan was held vicariously liable for the death caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Government jeep by its employee, since the act was unconnected with sovereign powers; the State's appeal was dismissed.

Facts

A temporary employee of the State, on probation as a motor driver, drove a Government jeep attached to the Collector of Udaipur. In February 1952, while driving it back along a public road from a workshop after repairs, he knocked down a man walking on the footpath, who died of his injuries three days later. The widow and the minor daughter sued the driver and the State of Rajasthan for damages. The driver remained ex parte. The Trial Court decreed the suit against the driver but dismissed it against the State, holding that because the car was maintained for the Collector's official duties, the case involved the exercise of sovereign powers. The High Court of Rajasthan decreed Rs. 15,000 against the State as well. Both courts found the driving rash and negligent. The State appealed on a certificate under Article 133(1)(c).

Questions before the Court

  1. Was the State immune because the jeep was maintained for the Collector's official use, so that the act was done in the exercise of sovereign powers?
  2. Does Article 300(1) of the Constitution govern the extent of a State's liability in tort, and what does it refer back to?
  3. Was the State of Rajasthan liable when the corresponding pre-Constitution State would have had to be shown liable in like cases?

What the Court held

  • When the accident occurred the jeep was being driven back from the repair shop, and on the findings of the courts below the tortious act was committed in circumstances wholly dissociated from the exercise of sovereign powers. The High Court took the correct view.
  • Articles 294 and 295 deal with the devolution of rights and liabilities and do not define them. The second part of Article 300(1), through the words 'in the like cases', defines the extent of a State's liability by referring back to the position before the Constitution.
  • Through Section 176(1) of the 1935 Act, Section 32 of the 1915 Act and Section 65 of the 1858 Act, the State's liability is that of the East India Company. In the Peninsular and Oriental case the Supreme Court of Calcutta held the Secretary of State, in the Company's place, liable for servants' negligence where an ordinary employer would be.
  • For Rajasthan the inquiry stops at the Rajasthan Union formed on the eve of the Constitution. The State did not show that the Union was exempt from vicarious liability by any enactment or by common law, and so failed to discharge the burden on that issue.
  • On first principles the State is as liable as any other employer for torts of its servant within the scope of employment. Crown immunity under English common law never operated in India, and until the legislature provides otherwise under Article 300, the law remains as it was under the East India Company. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Why it matters

The Court held the State vicariously liable in tort for the negligence of its employee in an activity unconnected with sovereign powers. It read the second part of Article 300(1) as fixing the extent of State liability by reference back to the liability of the East India Company, approving the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. case. It also rejected the English rule that the Crown cannot be sued for its servants' torts as having no place in India, particularly under a welfare State.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“On the findings of the Courts below it is clear that the tortious act complained of had been committed by the first defendant in circumstances wholly dissociated from the exercise of sovereign powers.”
Sinha, C.J.Page 4 of the judgment
“In so far as the State activities have such wide ramifications involving not only the use of sovereign powers but also its powers as employers in so many public sectors, it is too much to claim that the State should be immune from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such.”
Sinha, C.J.Page 10 of the judgment
“Viewing the case from the point of view of first principles, there should be no difficulty in holding that the State should be as much liable for tort in respect of a tortious act committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and functioning as such as any other employer.”
Sinha, C.J.Page 13 of the judgment
“Art. 300 of the Constitution itself has saved the right of Parliament or the Legislature of a State to enact such law as it may think fit and proper in this behalf. But so long as the Legislature has not expressed its intention to the contrary, it must be held that the law is what it has been ever since the days of the East India Company.”
Sinha, C.J.Page 14 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati
Case
Civil Appeal No. 263 of 1958
Decided
2 February 1962
Bench
Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. (CJ), Kapur, J.L., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R.
Opinions
Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sinha, C.J.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    Police officers, acting under their statutory powers of arrest and seizure, seize gold from A. Through their negligence in its safe custody, the gold is lost and never returned to A. A sues the State for its value. Applying Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., the suit:

    1. A. succeeds, as Article 300 has removed every immunity the State once had
    2. B. fails, as a claim for loss of property lies only by a writ under Article 32
    3. C. succeeds, as the State is liable in the same way as any private employer
    4. D. fails, as the negligence occurred in the exercise of sovereign powers
    Show the answer

    D. fails, as the negligence occurred in the exercise of sovereign powers

    In Kasturilal (AIR 1965 SC 1039) the power to arrest, search and seize was held to be a sovereign power, so the State was not liable for the negligence of the police in keeping the gold. The Court distinguished State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, where the tort was not committed in exercise of sovereign power.

  2. Question 2 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), the State was held vicariously liable for:

    1. A. the loss of gold seized by the police and kept negligently in their custody
    2. B. the detention of a prisoner in jail for several years after his acquittal
    3. C. the death of a man knocked down by a Government jeep driven rashly
    4. D. the death of a man in police custody as a result of injuries inflicted on him
    Show the answer

    C. the death of a man knocked down by a Government jeep driven rashly

    In Vidyawati ([1962] Supp 2 SCR 989) a Government jeep being taken from the repair shop for the Collector's use was driven rashly and killed a man; the State was held liable like any other employer. The gold seizure is Kasturilal, the custodial death is Nilabati Behera, and the post-acquittal detention is Rudul Sah.