QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE- AN ANALYSIS

June 6, 2023

This article has been written by Payodhi Daschaudhuri of Semester 4, pursuing BA LLB from Adamas University.

INTRODUCTION

The principle of qui facit per alium facit per se is based on interconnection and reciprocal benefit. It implies that every action made for the benefit of others, whether it is for the benefit of a team member, a customer, or a friend, ultimately helps the individual conducting the activity as well. To put it another way, when we help others, we also help ourselves. One of the primary areas where this approach is frequently implemented is in business. In the workplace, for example, when colleagues work well together, they not only assist each other achieve their goals, but they also profit from the team’s joint achievement. In this manner, one individual’s success becomes the success of the entire team, and everyone benefits from the positive consequences. Similarly, in politics, qui facit per alium facit per se emphasises the importance of elected leaders being answerable to their voters. Politicians that take acts that assist certain groups of people indirectly benefit themselves by gaining the support and trust of their voters. They may face negative repercussions if they do not act in the best interests of their constituents, such as losing support and harming their reputation. In personal connections, the notion of qui facit per alium facit per se is equally applicable. When we help others, we not only improve their lives, but we also gain a sense of joy and fulfilment from doing good for others. Building great ties with people can also help us in the long run, as we may get support and aid in the future. In short, qui facit per alium facit per se emphasises the concept that our actions have a greater influence than just ourselves, and we should constantly seek to behave in ways that benefit both others and ourselves. We may establish healthier connections, work cooperatively, and have a beneficial influence on the world around us by understanding and practising this idea.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

It originates from the legal presumption, according to Salmond, that any activities committed by a servant in and about his master’s business are undertaken with his master’s direct or implicit permission, and so are the master’s acts for which he can be held accountable. A person who is capable of compensating for the negative repercussions of his conduct shall not be able to avoid doing so by delegating some tasks to subordinates or authorities against whom no remedy can be sought. Prior to the abolition of slavery, the master was held entirely accountable for the activities of his agent. Following the abolition of slavery, it was established that the master would be accountable for his servant’s acts only if he had instructed the servant to do the task in a certain manner, i.e., to do an unlawful act, or to commit any act in a wrongful manner. The law in the 17th century maintained that the master was accountable for all of his servant’s actions if he had instructed the servant. The emergence of this theory coincided with an era of increased trade and commerce, as well as widespread industrialisation. When trade and commerce were performed on a big scale, the idea of command became less dependable since servants were frequently working at considerable distances from their masters and were unable to receive their instructions every time. This was the period when the Command Theory was criticized to be too narrow and inadequate, to wrap the master-servant relation. Hence, the doctrine (Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se) came into the scene.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE IN INDIA

The maxim is relevant both in tort law and in criminal law. The doctrine’s most prevalent application may be seen in the workplace. The employer at the workplace or the organisation is held vicariously accountable for its workers’ acts, deeds, and words, especially when the actions and deeds are done in the employer’s or the organization’s name. The employer or organisation is frequently held vicariously accountable for the activities of his employee/s unless it is proven that the employee did the acts in the course of work, voluntarily, or without the employer’s knowledge or approval.

The idea of vicarious responsibility exemplifies the principle of qui facit per alium facit per se in tort law. Employers are held liable for their employees’ acts when they are operating within the scope of their employment under vicarious responsibility. In other words, if an employee causes injury to someone while doing their job obligations, the employer may be held accountable for the employee’s actions. This is because the employee’s activities are viewed as being conducted on behalf of the employer, and so the employer is liable for any harm caused by those actions. In assessing the extent of employment for vicarious responsibility reasons, the idea of qui facit per alium facit per se is significant. In general, an employer is only accountable for an employee’s activities if they were taken within the scope of employment. This implies that in order for the employer to be held accountable, the employee’s activities must have been approved by the employer or linked to the firm’s business. The qui facit per alium facit per se concept can also be applied to establish whether an independent contractor is performing within the scope of their employment. Because an independent contractor is not an employee, an employer is generally not accountable for the activities of the contractor. However, if the independent contractor is operating on behalf of the employer and is directed and controlled by the employer, the concept of qui facit per alium facit per se may be applied to hold the employer accountable for the contractor’s acts. The qui facit per alium facit per se premise can also be utilised to establish shared culpability. When two or more parties are found accountable for the same injury caused to a plaintiff, this is referred to as joint responsibility. This means that each party must pay the entire amount of damages assessed to the plaintiff. When one person acts on behalf of another, the concept of qui facit per alium facit per se can be applied to hold both parties jointly accountable for the harm done. Overall, the qui facit per alium facit per se premise is an essential notion in tort law since it aids in establishing culpability for the conduct of others. It highlights the significance of accountability and responsibility, both for individual acts and for actions committed on behalf of others. Recognizing the interdependence of our activities and their repercussions allows us to aim to act in ways that benefit both others and ourselves, resulting in a more just and fair society.

In criminal law, the principle of qui facit per alium facit per se is often used to establish accomplice liability. Accomplice liability is a form of criminal liability that holds individuals responsible for crimes committed by others if they assisted, encouraged, or in any way contributed to the commission of the crime. To prove accomplice culpability, it must be demonstrated that the individual had the purpose to help or promote the commission of the crime, and that their acts really contributed to the crime’s commission. For example, if someone assists in the planning of a robbery, gives weapons to the criminals, or acts as a lookout during the crime, they may be held guilty for the heist under accomplice responsibility. In assessing the breadth of accomplice culpability, the idea of qui facit per alium facit per se is significant. It highlights the notion that people who enable or encourage illegal conduct bear responsibility for the harm produced by that action, even if they did not commit the crime themselves. This discourages people from engaging in illegal activities and urges them to accept responsibility for their acts, even if they are carried out by others. Overall, the qui facit per alium facit per se premise is an essential notion in criminal law since it helps to demonstrate culpability for the crimes of others. It highlights the significance of personal responsibility and encourages people to consider the implications of their actions, both for themselves and for others. We may strive towards a safer and more equal society for everybody if we recognise the interdependence of our actions and their repercussions.

CASE LAWS

The Supreme Court of India used the concept of Qui facit per alium facit per se to establish accomplice responsibility in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rameshwar Singh,. In this case, the accused provided a fake alibi to a co-accused who was charged with murder. The court determined that by presenting a false alibi, the accused helped and abetted the conduct of the crime and was thus accountable as an accomplice.

The Supreme Court used the concept of Qui facit per alium facit per se in the case of Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain to find a contractor accountable for the activities of its subcontractor. The subcontractor had damaged a water supply pipeline while performing construction work, and the court determined that the contractor was accountable for the harm since the contractor had hired the subcontractor to do the job.

The Supreme Court used the concept of Qui facit per alium facit per se in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand,, to declare an employer accountable for the activities of its employee. The employee had sexually harassed a female co-worker, and the court ruled that the employer was vicariously responsible for the employee’s acts because the harassment happened while the employee was on the job.

CONCLUSION

The idea of Qui facit per alium facit per se is a key legal notion that stresses people’ and organisations’ accountability and responsibility for the conduct of others. The theory has several applications in law, including tort law, criminal law, contract law, and labour law. Its use is a key tool for demonstrating responsibility, whether for an employee’s activities while on the job or for aiding and abetting the commission of an unlawful act. The idea of Qui facit per alium facit per se promotes fairness and justice in the judicial system by holding individuals who contribute to harm accountable for their acts.

REFERENCE

June 6, 2023