State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
State is vicariously liable like an ordinary employer for the negligence of its driver where the act is not in exercise of sovereign power.
Facts
A government jeep car of the State of Rajasthan, while being driven rashly and negligently by a State employee from the workshop to the Collector's bungalow for the Collector's use, knocked down the plaintiff's husband, who died of his injuries. The widow sued the State of Rajasthan for compensation.
Issues
- Whether the State of Rajasthan was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of its employee.
- Whether transporting the Collector's car amounted to an act in exercise of sovereign power.
Arguments
The claimant argued the State should be treated like any ordinary employer liable for the tort of its servant in the course of employment. The State pleaded sovereign immunity, contending it should not be liable for acts of its servants.
Held
The Supreme Court confirmed the Rajasthan High Court and held the State liable. In a welfare State engaged in numerous activities that any private person could undertake, there was no justification for treating the State differently from an ordinary employer. The driving of the jeep for the Collector's use was not an exercise of sovereign power, and the State was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
Ratio decidendi
Where a State servant commits a tort in the course of employment in an activity not referable to a delegated sovereign power, the State is vicariously liable to the same extent as a private employer.
Significance
Marked a major liberalisation, signalling judicial discomfort with broad sovereign immunity in a welfare State. Though seemingly narrowed by Kasturi Lal the same era, its welfare-State reasoning was revived and built upon in later decisions such as N. Nagendra Rao.
Related
Test yourself on Law of Torts. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
