A Review of State liability in

rape cases in the light of the

Delhi Domestic Worker’s
Forum vs Union of India.
 State or Union of India, can be sued under
Article 300 of the Constitution

• State liability is defined under the Article 300 of the Constitution.

• The Constitution makes the Union and the States as juristic persons capable for
owning and acquiring property, making contracts, carrying on trade or business,
bringing and defending legal action, just as private individuals.
Case Analysis of Delhi Domestic Worker’s Forum VS Union of India-
In this case , 6 tribal girls were brutally raped by the 7-8 army personnel in the Murli express
(train). The case was prosecuted against two army personnel.
• SC observed that rape cases were not dealt with utmost sincerity by the administrative
authorities, thus in order to fasten the proceeding of rape cases, it laid down various
directives, which need to be followed while dealing with the rape cases.
• Directives
- Victim must be informed about her right to get a lawyer.
- Every police station must maintain a list of lawyers capable enough to explain the
nature of proceedings to the victim; prepare her for the case; assist her in court and in
the police station;
- Provide guidance on agencies and organizations that help in counselling and
rehabilitation of rape victims.
- During trial anonymity of the victim must be maintained.
- Unnecessary references and passing of derogatory remarks that the victim contributed
to the crime is not permitted.
On the basis of the directives, the National commission for women brought a proposal to have the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
• The Apex court held that the State has failed in protecting the serious violation of
a victim’s fundamental right, right to life under article 21, the State is duty
bound to provide compensation, which may help in the victim’s
rehabilitation. Thus state was held liable to compensate the injuries of the
Victim.
• Compensation in the Civil wrong and Public wrong.
• 2009 Amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (“hereinafter” Cr.P.C),
which brought a progressive reform in the criminal justice system.
• Victim Compensation Board
• Added section 357 A of Cr.P.C
• Shortcomings in the 2009 amendment.
-Full discretion to the court to recommend the compensation to the victim.
-Vanishing point to the remedy of compensation.( Mathura Rape Case)
Vicarious liability of the State- State is held liable for the act of its Agent.
-Lilabati baisaya vs State of Assam
- Delhi Forum Case
- Chairman Railway Board vs Chandrima
• Concept of sovereign immunity against State liability
• Kasturilal vs State of UP- Act was committed by police officer in the exercise of
delegated sovereign power. Thus state is not held liable.
• State of Rajasthan vs Vidhyawathi - State was held vicariously liable for the act
of its agent.
• Nagendra Rao vs State of AP-
Suggestions
- Section 197 of Cr.P.C should be abrogated
- Strict compliance of the directives by the police authorities
- Change of attitude towards victim
- Investigation should be victim oriented.