9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Proceedings under Article 226 for Claiming Damages 2. Locus Standi of Mrs. Chandrima Das 3. Entitlement of a Foreign National to Constitutional Rights 4. Vicarious Liability of the Central Government for Acts of Railway Employees Summary: 1. Maintainability of Proceedings under Article 226 for Claiming Damages: The Supreme Court addressed the contention that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be legally initiated for claiming damages from the Railways for the offence of rape committed on Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon. The Court held that where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under Public Law, notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law. The Court emphasized that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for "any other purpose," which includes the enforcement of public duties by public bodies. 2. Locus Standi of Mrs. Chandrima Das: The Supreme Court rejected the contention that Mrs. Chandrima Das, a practicing advocate, could not file the petition as she was not personally connected to the victim. The Court noted that the petition filed by Mrs. Das was in public interest, seeking several reliefs including the eradication of anti-social and criminal activities at Howrah Railway Station. The concept of "Locus Standi" has undergone a sea change, and public-spirited citizens have the right to file petitions in the realm of Public Interest Litigation. 3. Entitlement of a Foreign National to Constitutional Rights: The Court dismissed the argument that Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon, being a foreign national, could not claim relief under Public Law for the violation of Fundamental Rights. The Court held that the Fundamental Rights under Articles 20, 21, and 22 are available not only to "citizens" but also to "persons," which includes non-citizens. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 means the right to live with dignity, free from exploitation, and this right is available to every person within the territory of India, including foreign nationals. 4. Vicarious Liability of the Central Government for Acts of Railway Employees: The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the Central Government cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence of rape committed by Railway employees. The Court held that the Union Government is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment. The Court noted that running of Railways is a commercial activity, and the employees managing such activities are essential components of the Government machinery. Therefore, the Union Government can be held liable in damages for the wrongful acts of its employees. The appeal was dismissed with the direction that the compensation amount shall be made over to the High Commissioner for Bangladesh in India for payment to the victim, Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon, within three months.
|
