Administrative lawState liabilitySupreme Court of India

State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati

AIR 1962 Supreme Court 93319621 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Government jeep driven by government driver negligently hit Vidyawati's husband, causing fatal injuries. Vidyawati sued State of Rajasthan for damages. State argued sovereign immunity ("King can do no wrong")
Issue
Whether the State is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of its servant during performance of official duty.
Held
Driving a government vehicle is not a "sovereign function"; it is an activity that any private employer could perform.
Principle
State is vicariously liable for torts of its servants committed in non-sovereign functions; no justification for government immunity in a welfare state.
Cite this

Facts

  • Government jeep driven by government driver negligently hit Vidyawati's husband, causing fatal injuries
  • Vidyawati sued State of Rajasthan for damages
  • State argued sovereign immunity ("King can do no wrong")
  • Driver was performing official duty (taking an officer for inspection)

Issue

  1. Whether the State is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of its servant during performance of official duty.

Held

  • Driving a government vehicle is not a "sovereign function"; it is an activity that any private employer could perform
  • For non-sovereign functions, the State is liable exactly as any private employer (vicarious liability)
  • In a welfare State, no justification exists for the government to escape liability that any ordinary employer bears
  • Sovereign immunity confined to acts done in exercise of sovereign (inalienable) power
  • Vidyawati awarded damages

Ratio decidendi

When a government servant commits a tort while performing duties that are not exclusively sovereign in nature (not defense, foreign affairs, or acts of State), the government stands in the position of an ordinary employer and is vicariously liable. The welfare State performs numerous functions indistinguishable from private activity; it cannot claim immunity for wrongs committed during such functions.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: State vicariously liable for non-sovereign function torts.
  • Part B: Contrast with Kasturi Lal (1965) where sovereign immunity applied (police custody = sovereign function). Then show how Nagendra Rao (1994) narrowed the sovereign immunity doctrine further.
  • Key line: "In the welfare State, if the State is to escape liability for torts committed by its servants, it would make a mockery of the Rule of Law."

Cite this

Citation

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati AIR 1962 Supreme Court 933

Reported: AIR 1962 SC 933; Massey, Administrative Law; Sathe, Administrative Law. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.