The State of Rajasthan vs Mst.

Vidhyawati
and Another on 2 February, 1962
 In this case, the claim for damages was made by the
dependants of a person who died in an accident
caused by the negligence of the driver of a jeep
maintained by the Government for official use of the
Collector of Udaipur while it was being brought back
from the workshop after repairs. The Rajasthan High
Court took the view-that the State was liable, for the
State is in no better position in so far as it supplies
cars and keeps drivers for its Civil Service. The
Supreme Court upheld the same and observed that
for acts done in the course of employment but not in
connection with sovereign powers of the State, State
like any other employer is vicariously liable.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
 Lokumal was a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan, as a motor driver on
probation. In February, 1952, he was employed as the driver of a Government jeep
car, registered as No. RUM 49, under the Collector of Udaipur. The said car was
given for necessary repairs at a workshop.
 After the repairs were finished, Lokumal, while driving the car back along a public
road, in the evening of February 11, 1952, knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was
walking on the footpath by the said of the public road in Udaipur city, causing him
multiple injuries, including fractures of the skull and backbone, resulting in his death
three days later, in the hospital where he had been removed for treatment.
 The plaintiffs who are Jagdishlal’s widow, Vidyawati and a minor daughter, aged
three years, through her mother as next friend sued the said Lokumal and the State
of Rajasthan for damages for the tort aforesaid. They claimed the compensation of
Rs. 25,000/- from both the defendants.
 The suit was majorly contested by the state of Rajasthan, i.e. defendant no. 2 and
defendant no. 1, Lokumal, remained ex parte. The present suit has been contended
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by State of Rajasthan, as the appellant on the
ground that it was not liable for the tortious act of its employee.
 Procedural History
 The Trial Court, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, decree the
suit against the first defendant ex-parte, and dismissed it without costs
against the second defendant. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the High Court
of Rajasthan allowed the appeal and decreed the suit against the second
defendant also, with costs in both the Courts.
 The State of Rajasthan applied for and obtained the necessary certificate
“that the case fulfils the requirements of Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution
of India”. The High Court rightly observed that an important point of law
of general public importance, namely, the extent of the liability of the
State, in tort, was involved.
 But in view of the fact that both the Courts below have agreed in finding
that the first defendant was rash and negligent in driving the jeep car
resulting in the accident and the ultimate death of Jagdishlal, it is no
more necessary to advert to all the questions raised by way of answer to
the suit, except the one on which the appeal has been pressed before us.
ISSUES RAISED

 Whether the state earlier to the

commencement of Constitution, Art. 300, be
liable in similar situation akin to the state of
Rajasthan.
 Whether the rash and negligent driving of
jeep car, which led to the claim in the suit was
being maintained “in exercise of sovereign
power” and not as part of any commercial
activity of the State.
RULES APPLICABLE

 Article 133(1), Constitution of India, 1950

 Article 294, Constitution of India, 1950
 Article 300 Constitution of India, 1950
 Section 2(1), Crown Proceedings Act, 1947
 Article 133(1) of the Constitution of
India
Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order
in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies-
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance;
and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by
the Supreme Court”
 
No appeal in a civil matter lies as a right to the Supreme Court. An appeal can lie only
on a certificate of the High Court which is issued when the above two questions are
satisfied.

For the purposes of Article 133(1), the proper test to determine whether a question of
law is substantial or not is whether it is of general public importance, or whether it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so, whether it is
either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the highest court,
or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views.
Article 294(4) & 300 of the Constitution
of India
 Under Article 294 (4) of the constitution, the liability
of Union Government or a state Government may
arise ‘out of any contract or otherwise. The word
otherwise suggests that the said liability may arise
in respects of tortious acts also.
 Under article 300 (1), the extent of such liability is
fixed. It provides that the liability of the Union of
India or State Government will be same as that of
Dominion of India and the Provision before the
commencement of the Constitution.
Before commencement of Constitution

 The English law with regard to immunity of the

Government for tortuous acts of its servants is
partly accepted in India. The High Court observed:
as a general rule this is true, for it is an attribute of
sovereignty and universal law that a state cannot
be used in its own courts without its consent.’
Thus a distinction is sought to be made between
‘sovereign functions’ and ‘non-sovereign
functions’ of the state. The State is not liable in
tort.
After the commencement of
Constitution
 The court held that the rule of immunity
based on the English law had no validity in
India. After the establishment of the
Republican form of Government under the
Constitution there was no justification in
principle or in public interests that the state
should not held liable for vicariously for the
tortuous acts of its servants.
 Sovereign
 The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any
independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the
supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of
government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of
political power, from which all specific political powers are
derived; the international independence of a state, combined
with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without
foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is
sovereign and independent.
 The power to do everything in a state without accountability, –to
make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect
taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form
treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the
like.
 Sovereign Immunity
 Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which
the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune
from civil suit or criminal prosecution.

 Sovereign immunity, the principle derived from the ancient truism that
the “king can do no wrong” and holding that nations are immune from
the jurisdiction of other nations’ courts, is recognized by virtually every
nation in the world. Despite the principle’s universality, however, its
application differs across states. Some states extend sovereign
immunity as a matter of comity, while others have codified the doctrine
in their jurisdictional statutes. Some states, such as China, afford
foreign states absolute immunity, while the majority of nations,
including the United States, have adopted a more restrictive approach
that immunizes foreign states from suit in connection with sovereign
acts but leaves them subject to suit in connection with commercial acts.
Article 300 of The Constitution
 Article 300 of the Constitution says that the Government
of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of
India and Government of a State may sue or be sued by
the name of the State, or of the Legislature of a State.
Thus the Constitution makes the Union and the States as
juristic persons capable for owning and acquiring
property, making contracts, carrying on trade
or business, bringing and defending legal action, just as
private individuals. The legal personality of the Union of
India, or a State of Indian Union is thus placed beyond
doubt by the express language of Article 300.
 Before present Constitution came into force the East India Company,
and after Government of India Act, 1858, which transferred the
Government of India to Her Majesty with its rights and liabilities, the
Secretary of State Council were liable for the tortuous acts of their
servants committed in the course of their enjoyment.
 In India ever since the time of East India Company, the sovereign has
been held liable to be sued in tort or in contract, and the Common law
immunity never operated in India.
 In Moodaly v. The East India Company (1775) , the Privy Council
expressed the opinion that Common law doctrine of sovereign
immunity was not applicable to India. After assumption of sovereign
powers by the British Crown in 1858. The first enactment regarding the
administration of Country was enacted in 1858 known as Government
of India Act 1858. Later on it was replaced by the Government of India
Act 1915 and 1935.
 The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign power no more
exists. It all depends on the nature of the power and manner of its
exercise.
 No civilized system can permit an executive to play with the people of its
country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign.
 The functions state as “sovereign and non-sovereign” or ‘governmental
and non-governmental’ is not sound.
 It is contrary to modern jurisprudence thinking. Since the doctrine has
become outdated and sovereignty now vests in the people, the state
cannot claim any immunity and if a suit is maintainable against the officer
personally, there is no reason to hold that it would not be maintainable
against the state.
 With changing concept of the state and our constitution establishing a
welfare state, the functions are not confined only to maintaining law and
order, but extend to engaging in all activities including industry, public
transport, state trading, to name only a few of them. The possible
ramifications arising out these acts are wide and it is not possible to give
immunity to all such acts of state. Thus, in the given scenario, it is
imperative to understand the difference in the sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the state. Only, for the acts covered under the
sovereign functions, the state can claim immunity.
Negligence

 Ingeneral terms, negligence is “the failure to

use ordinary care” through either an act or
omission. That is, negligence occurs when:
 somebody does not exercise the amount of care
that a reasonably careful person would use under
the circumstances; or
 somebody does something that a reasonably
careful person would not do under the
circumstances.
 Proximate Cause
 Proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of
negligent conduct, and plaintiff’s injury must have been a natural
and probable result of the negligent conduct. In order for a
defendant to be liable, the plaintiff must establish both negligence
and proximate cause.
 It is typically not necessary for liability that the defendant’s
negligence be either the only proximate cause of an injury, or the
last proximate cause. A defendant may be liable even where an
injury has multiple proximate causes, and whether those causes
occur at the same time or in combination. A plaintiff may be able to
bring a cause of action against two or more defendants by proving
that the acts of each were proximate causes of the plaintiff’s injury,
even where the defendants’ negligent acts were distinct.
 The Elements of a Negligence Action
 A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove
the following four factors by a “preponderance of the evidence”:
 The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general
public, including the plaintiff);
 The defendant violated that duty;
 As a result of the defendant’s violation of that duty, the plaintiff
suffered injury; and
 The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
defendant’s action or inaction.
 For example, a person driving a car has a general duty to conduct the car in a safe
and responsible manner. If a driver runs through a red light, the driver violates
that duty. As it is foreseeable that running a red light can result in a car crash, and
that people are likely to be injured in such a collision, the driver will be liable in
negligence for any injuries that in fact result to others in a collision resulting from
the running of the red light
 Other Relevant Provisions
 Wrong
 Public – Crimes
 Private – Civil
▪ Breach of Contract
▪ Breach of Equitable Obligations (Trust, Fiduciary obligations)
▪ Breach of Legal Rights and Duties - Torts
 Vicarious Liability (the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their
subordinate)
 Damages
 Liquidated
 Unliquidated
 Employer – Employee Relationship
Relevant Case Laws

 Peninsular & Oriental Navigation Company vs

Secretary of State for India (1861)
 State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954)
 State of Rajasthan vs Vidhyavati (1962)
 Kasturi Lal vs State of UP (1965)
 Nagendra Rao vs State of AP (1994)
 JUDGEMENT AND CONCLUSION
 The position of law, obtaining both prior and subsequent to 1858, the
position obtaining under Article 300 of the Constitution and the facts
and circumstances leading to the formation of the State of Rajasthan,
were all reviewed by the Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, The act of the driver was not an act in the
exercise of a sovereign function. The Court said that the employment
of driver of a jeep car for the use of a civil servant was an activity which
was not connected in any manner with the sovereign power of the
State at all.  In this case, court rejected the plea of immunity of the
State and held that the State was liable for the tortious act of the
driver like any other employer.
 The Court has very aptly decided the instant case and formed a strong
precedent for many more cases that arose with respect to the vicarious
liability of the state for the acts of its employers.