State must Pay Compensation for the Torts Committed by its Employees

Shaunak Choudhury | SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 15^th May 2020

Saheli, A Women’s Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422

Facts 

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of Kamlesh Kumari and Maya Devi. The two women lived in the same house in different rooms with their husbands and children. Their husbands were not usually at home as they were truck drivers. During their time in the house there were two changes in ownership. Puran Chand, and his sons Shambu Dayal and Prakash Chand, being the third in the line of owners, who claimed to have purchased the house. They had been successful at illegally evicting the tenants of the house but Kamlesh and Maya did not leave. Kamlesh got a stay order against her forceful eviction from a Court and continued to live there. In October 1987, the so-called landlord cut off water and electricity. On 2^nd, 4^th and 12^th November 1987, the Station House Officer of Anand Parbat Police Station, Lal Singh called Kamlesh Kumari and warned her to leave the premises. On 13^th November, the Sub Inspector of Anand Parbat Police Station threw out Maya Devi from the house and took away Kamlesh Kumari’s children while she had gone to consult with her lawyer. Her children had been put in lock up. With her lawyer’s help, she was able to get them out. The same day, at night, Kamlesh was attacked by Shambu Dayal. On 14^th November, Shambu Dayal, Prakash Chand, Lal Singh (in civilian clothes) and Sham Lal (sub inspector in uniform) beat Kamlesh, tore off her clothes and molested her. Her son Naresh had clung to his mother, but Lal Singh threw him on the floor, and he got injured. 

Kamlesh was dragged to the police station and a criminal case of trespass was imposed on her, after which she was sent to Tihar Jail. After she was released, Naresh soon died due to his injuries and the fever and pneumonitis those injuries had caused. The report submitted by Puran Singh, Inspector, Crime Branch Delhi stated that the whole incident was a high-level conspiracy to get the tenants out of the house. 

The instant writ petitions were moved to the Supreme Court. The writ demanded exemplary damages for the death of Naresh. 

Issues

• Whether the Delhi Administration can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the Delhi Police.

Judgement

The bench, Justice B.C. Ray and Justice Ratnavel Pandian, found that it is settled law that the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. Thus, the Delhi Administration was responsible for the tort committed by the S.H.O, Lal Singh. This verdict concurred with the opinion given in Joginder Kaur v. Punjab State (1969 ACJ 28) and State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962 Supp (2) SCR 989) where the Court said that State must be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employees and must pay damages. The Court also pointed out the verdict in People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Headquarters; where the Court gave the family of a laborer, who was beaten at the hands of Delhi Police officers, compensation worth Rs 50,000. 

The Court awarded Kamlesh Kumari an amount of Rs. 75,000 which had to be paid by the Delhi Administration for battery, assault, false imprisonment, physical injuries, and death. The Court said that the damages for assault, battery and false imprisonment are largely for the mental pain, distress, indignity, loss of liberty and death. The Delhi Administration was also allowed to recover the cost of the damages from the officers found responsible. Since the police officers were not there before the bench, the Court ordered that no observation in the case can be used for the criminal case against the officers. 

This case shows that although administrative and, law and order functionaries may fail to do their duties and at time outright abuse their power, the Courts will take notice of the same and provide the necessary relief for those that have suffered.