LexTHE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS. versus MRS. CHANDRIMA DAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS.
v.
MRS. CHANDRIMA DAS AND ORS.
JA,~UARY 28, 2CGO
B
[S. SAGHIR AH.\IAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.J
Constitution of India, 195(}-Articles 32, 226--Public Law
Remedies-Availability oj:._claim of compensation in a writ petition under
Article 226 from the Railways for the offence of rape committed by its
C employees on the victim, a Bangladeshi nationaf--i'vfaintainability of-Held,
Public Law Remedie1· have also been extendcd to the realm of tort and would
be available notwith.~tanding that a suit could be filed for damages under
Private Law, where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates
to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public
D duties--<.irant of compensation of R1. JO lacs to the victim by the High Court,
upheld.
Public Law-Relief under, to a foreign national-Grant of-Held, the
victim was enti1led tu all the constitutional rights available to a citizen w far
as 'Right to life' was concerned as the Constitution guarantees all the basic
E and fundamental human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights to its citizens and other persons-Right to life includes right to live with
human dignity and rape violates this right of a womarr--State under a
Constitutional liability to pay compensation to the rape victim as the right
available to her under Article 21 was violated-Constitution of India,
F 195(}-Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22- -{lniversal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948-Articles 3, 7, 9.
Law of Torts- Vicarious liability-Existence of-Held, employees of the
Union of India deputed to ntn the Railways and to manage the establishment,
including the Railway Stations and Yatri Niwas, are essential components of
G the Govt. machinery carrying on commercial activity and for any act of tort
committed by .1uch employees, the Union Govt. would be vicariously liable
in damages to the person wronged by those employees-Functions of the
Govt. in a We if are State are man if old, all of which cannot be said to be the
activities relating to exercise of Sovereign powers-Contentio11 that liability
H under the law of torts would arise only when the act complained of was
480
-
'
-
CHAJRMAN KAIL WAY HUARD v. MRS. CHANDRlJ\.lA DAS
481
perf om1ed in the course of official duty, held to be wholly bad-Govt. held to A
be vicariously liable for the offence of rape committed at the building belong-
ing to the Railways and perpetrated by Railway employees.
Public Interest Litigation-Locus Standi-Concept of-Petition filed in
public interest by the reJpondent, a practising Advocate of High Court, for
various reliefs including the relief for compensation for the victim of
rape- Held, could legally be filed by the respondent, though the respondent
was not in any way connected or related to the victim.
One H, a Bangladeshi national, was gang raped by many including
employees of the Railways in a room at Yatri Siwas at Howrah Station of
the Eastern Railway and thereafter at a rented flat. Subsequently she was
rescued by the Police following information by the landlord of the building
who beard the hue and cry raised by H.
Respondent No. 1, a practising Advocate of the High Court field a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for compensation to H and
several other reliefs including a direction to the appellants to eradicate
anti-social and criminal activities at Howrah Railway Station. High Court
awarded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation to H holding that rape was
committed at the building belonging to the Railways and was perpetrated
by the Raihray employees. Hence this appeal by Railways.
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Railways
would not be liable to pay compensation to the victim who was a foreigner
B
c
D
E
and was not an Indian national; that the commission of the offence by
persons including Railway employees would not make the Railway or the
Union of India vicariously liable to pay compensation to the victim; that p
since it was an individual act of some persons, they alone should be
prosecuted and on being found guilty should be punished; that for claim-
ing damages for the offence perpetrated on the victim the remedy lay in
the domain of Private Law and not under Public Law and, therefore, no
compensation could have been legally awarded by the High Court in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution; that the respondent was G
only a prExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.