VICARIOUS LIABLITY UNDER IPC
Introduction
The notion of vicarious responsibility holds one person accountable for the wrongdoing of another. Joint responsibility is another term for the idea of vicarious liability. Both civil and criminal law can impose vicarious responsibility. Only when there is a legal relationship between the two parties, or when the parties are somehow related, can such a responsibility exist. My inner desire for risk and excitement is not being satisfied by the quiet life of the school, so I decide to phone my friend Dhruv and ask him to assist me in robbing a bank. I tell Dhruv that it is only fair that he manages all the preparations for the theft because I came up with the idea. To my surprise, he agrees and begins to make the necessary arrangements, enabling me to relax and read my blog while he handles the specifics. Dhruv takes a car to use as our getaway vehicle, buys a couple firearms on the black market, and decides to grab some pot for himself while he is acquiring the weapons. A few nights before the theft, Dhruv goes to a pub and makes the error of informing the barmaid about our scheme. The barmaid calls the police, and they arrive just in time to catch us before we can loot the bank. Vicarious responsibility, also known as respondeat superior or imputed liability, is a legal concept that assigns blame to someone who did not do the injury but has a special superior legal relationship to the person who did. It derives from English common law. This notion is derived from the adage, Qui Facit per Alium Facit per se, which states that one who does an act via another is legally regarded to perform it himself.
Vicarious Liability includes the following elements.
(1) There must be some form of link.
(2) The incorrect behavior must be somehow connected to the connection.
(3) The wrong was committed throughout the course of employment.
Tort or Civil Law?
To create vicarious responsibility under torts or civil law, some basic requirements must be met.
The perpetrator and the other party must be connected in some way. It may be a principal-agent, master-servant, employer-employee, or other type of connection.
Ratification
A person may also be responsible for the wrongdoing or negligence of another party under tort or civil law in the following situations: If the person aids or abets the wrongdoing or negligence of the other party.
If the former approves or gives the other’s action permission while knowing that it was tortious in character.
As standing in a way that implies accountability for the deeds or omissions of the other person when in a relationship with the one who perpetrated the wrong.
Requirements for vicarious responsibility
Someone must fulfill specific qualifications to be held vicariously accountable — Relationship
The perpetrator and the person who issued the order should be related in some way. Possible connections include Master-Servant, Principal Agent, and Independent Contractors. Contracts of Service and Contracts for Service are both examples of Independent Contractors.
Contract of Service – This contract is special due to the existence of an existing contract between the parties and the nature of the services being provided. Relationships between master and servant are an illustration of this type of general contract, in which the controlling authority is largely unfettered.
Contract for Service – This agreement has a clear objective. There are a number of limitations on the ability to command another person’s activities. The fact that the employer may only allocate work to the employee and has no control over how the task is carried out is an example of a relational nexus between an employee and an employer.
based on civil law
If the master gives the servant permission to do a wrongdoing or if the servant performs a lawful conduct in an illegal manner, then the act is considered to have been carried out while the servant was employed. In civil law, a person can be held accountable if any of the following conditions are met:
1) the wrongdoer and the victim have a relationship;
2) the person aids the other person in committing a tortious act or omission; and
3) the person ratifies or authorizes the other person’s act while knowing that it was tortious in nature.
4) As standing in a way that implies accountability for the deeds or omissions of the other person while relating to the party who perpetrated the wrong.
About Criminal Law
According to the criminal law’s guiding concept, even if another person perpetrated the actus reus, the primary offender may still be held legally responsible. The law assigns responsibility for one party’s actions on the other based on the relationship between the two parties. It should be highlighted that vicarious responsibility is a civil notion and that it is an exception to the rule under criminal law. Whenever one member of an unlawful assembly violates the law in pursuit of a shared goal, all members of that unlawful assembly are accountable under Section 149 of the IPC. According to Section 154, if the occupier, owner, or any other person with a stake in the property fails to notify the appropriate public body about an unlawful assembly on the property, they will also be held accountable for such actions. According to Section 155, if any activity occurs on the property and the agent or manager fails to stop it from being used for illegal purposes, the owner or occupier of the land is held vicariously accountable for the conduct.
Vicarious State Responsibility
Our Constitution is paramount in India, hence the idea that a king cannot commit a sin is not relevant. As a result, the state may be constituted a party to the action and held vicariously accountable for it. According to Article 300 of the Constitution, a State’s government may be sued or sued against in the name of the State, and the Government of India may sue or be sued in the name of the Union of India.
Indian perspective
On the basis of respondent superior, IPC occasionally deviates from the general rule. In this situation, a master is responsible for the actions of his agents or subordinates under several IPC provisions. According to Section 149, everyone who at the time of the offense was a member would be guilty of the offense committed if it were committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common object of the assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew that the offense was likely to be committed in furtherance of that object. If a riot breaks out or an unlawful assembly is conducted in the interest of this group of people, Section 155 holds the owners, occupiers, or those claiming interest in land vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of their managers or agents. Clause 156 puts personal culpability on the managers or agents of property owners or occupiers on whose land a riot or illegal assembly occurs. Sections 268 and 269 specifically address public annoyance. A master is held vicariously accountable for a servant’s public nuisance under this clause. Section 499 holds a master vicariously accountable for his servant’s libelous publication. Under this provision, defamation is a crime.
Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union v. Aligarh Municipal Board
In this instance, the court found that there is no question that a company is subject to sanctions such as fines and sequestration for violating the orders of competent courts that are aimed at them. A command to a company is actually a command to the people who are in charge of running its activities formally. They and the corporate body are both in disobedience and subject to punishment for contempt if, after being informed of the order addressed to the corporation, they obstruct compliance or fail to take adequate action, within their power, for the fulfillment of the obligation of obeying those instructions.
obligations of licence holders
A licensee is accountable for the actions of his employee that are within the bounds of his power but go against the licensee’s directions in both England and India. It is not always required to have direct knowledge of the licensee in order to hold him liable for the actions of his subordinates. Otherwise, the laws giving permits to people of excellent reputation would be rendered ineffective for their intended purpose.
Sec. 149 If one person in an unlawful assembly violates the law, the entire assembly is also culpable of the violation.
Sec. 154
refusal by the landowner or occupant to disclose information on a riot or other disturbance. Every individual with an interest in the land, including the occupier or owner of the property, shall be held accountable for their conduct if they fail to report an illegal assembly on the property to the proper public authority or fail to take the necessary precautions to stop it.
Sec. 155 Landowners, occupiers, and others claiming an interest in land are held vicariously accountable for the actions or inactions of their managers or agents if a riot or unlawful assembly is organized in the benefit of this group of persons.
Sec. 156 Holds managers and agents accountable for their management’s and agents’ acts when their property is utilized for a riot or an unapproved assembly.
Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v/s State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 725 stated that Section149 of the Indian Penal Code declares the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for offences known to the members of the unlawful assembly to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
In Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 2472, it was stated that Section 149 proposes a vicarious liability in two contingencies by stating that if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense while furthering the common object of that assembly, then every member of such an unlawful assembly is guilty of the offense committed by the other members. if they have information that some of the other members of the assembly are likely to commit that specific crime in furtherance of the common goal, as well as even in situations when all the participants of the illegal assembly do not share the same common object to conduct a particular offense.
CONCLUSION
Generally speaking, an employer may only be held accountable for an employee’s crime if they participated in it within the confines of the law. It is important for us to recognize that courts, not Legislators, are responsible for imposing vicarious responsibility. Occasionally, laws expressly state that one person is to be held accountable for another’s crime. Nonetheless, courts frequently find this kind of intention in legislation. Vicarious responsibility is frequently used by judges to hold people accountable since doing otherwise would make the legislation meaningless. If he were not held accountable, the will of Parliament would be thwarted. Since the premise of criminal law is that a person should only be held accountable for his or her own wrongdoings, it may seem somewhat strange for the courts to be ready to impose accountability for the actions of another on the basis of expediency. Yet in some circumstances, it becomes crucial to hold the principal accountable for the actions of his subordinate in order to safeguard the interests of both the victim and the offender and to put an end to any finger-pointing between the two parties. It is true that vicarious responsibility is a civil notion, but as the law has evolved, courts have begun to apply the idea to criminal matters as well. It is often necessary to impose an obligation on the principle in order to defend the interests of the injured party and to avoid a blame game between the parties, which may delay justice.
Refrence
https://blog.ipleaders.in/
https://lawcorner.in/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
https://www.lawctopus.com/
https://www.aironline.in/
https://jajharkhand.in/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening