1962 (2) TMI 137 - SC - Indian Laws

State Liable for Employee Acts; Sovereign Immunity Not Applicable in Tort Case, Says Court.

The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the HC's decision that the State of Rajasthan is liable for the tortious acts of its employees. The Court held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Vicarious liability of the Government for tortious acts of its employees.2. Interpretation and application of Article 300 of the Indian Constitution.3. Whether the jeep car was being maintained in the exercise of sovereign power.4. Historical legal precedents regarding the liability of the East India Company and its relevance to the current case.Detailed Analysis:1. Vicarious Liability of the Government for Tortious Acts of its Employees:The central issue in this case is the extent of the vicarious liability of the Government for the tortious acts of its employees. The High Court of Rajasthan had decreed compensation against the State of Rajasthan for the negligent act of its employee, Lokumal, who was driving a government jeep car and caused the death of Jagdishlal. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the State should be liable for torts committed by its servants within the scope of their employment, similar to any other employer.2. Interpretation and Application of Article 300 of the Indian Constitution:The appellant argued that under Article 300 of the Constitution, the State of Rajasthan was not liable as the corresponding Indian State would not have been liable if the case had arisen before the Constitution came into force. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 300(1) consists of three parts: (1) the form and cause-title in a suit, (2) the extent of liability of a State to be sued, and (3) subject to any provisions made by an Act of the Legislature. The Court held that Article 300 is relevant for determining the liability of the State, as it refers back to the legal position before the Constitution, which was indicated in the Government of India Act, 1935, and further back to the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Act of 1858.3. Whether the Jeep Car was Being Maintained in the Exercise of Sovereign Power:The appellant contended that the jeep car was being maintained 'in exercise of sovereign power' and not as part of any commercial activity of the State. However, the Supreme Court found that the injuries resulting in the death of Jagdishlal were not caused while the jeep car was being used in connection with sovereign powers of the State. The High Court had also disagreed with the Trial Court on this issue, stating that the State is not in a better position merely because it supplies cars and keeps drivers for its civil service.4. Historical Legal Precedents Regarding the Liability of the East India Company:The Court extensively discussed the historical legal precedents, particularly the liability of the East India Company for tortious acts of its servants. The case of The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. The Secretary of State for India was cited, where it was held that the Secretary of State in Council of India is liable for damages occasioned by the negligence of government servants if the negligence is such as would render an ordinary employer liable. The Court also referred to the Government of India Act, 1858, and the subsequent legal framework that established the liability of the Secretary of State in Council for the tortious acts of its servants.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the State of Rajasthan is liable for the tortious acts of its employees, reaffirming the High Court's decision. The Court emphasized that the immunity of the Crown in the United Kingdom, based on old feudalistic notions, does not apply in India, particularly after the establishment of a Republican form of Government by the Constitution. The Court recognized the vicarious liability of the State as consistent with the legal position established since the days of the East India Company. The appeal was dismissed with costs.