KOLKATA: Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed a Rs 100-crore compensation claim against the Bengal government for vicarious liability, holding it responsible in a case of alleged defamation against a high court judge. “There is no master-servant relationship between the State and a High Court Judge, and accordingly, there is no question of any vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge,” the HC said.
Justice Shekhar B Saraf said in his order: “There was no legal obligation cast upon the State to proceed against the judge.”
“In fact, the Judge’s Protection Act, 1985 clearly provides protection to the Hon’ble Judge. In my opinion, the State has no duty to take up cajoles for the plaintiff, and in fact, the State is required to obey and comply with the orders of the Court. The misplaced notion of the plaintiff that the State is liable and is required to take action against orders passed by the High Court is absolutely unfounded and finds no place in law,” the order added.
The case relates to the 1998 death due to medical negligence case of Anuradha Saha. A complaint was lodged in Alipore court against three doctors who had treated her. Her husband, Kunal, first moved the National Consumer Redressal Forum and then the West Bengal Medical Council against the doctors. Both were dismissed.
In 2002, the Alipore court convicted two doctors for causing death due to negligence and acquitted the third. While the doctors convicted appealed against this order, Saha’s kin moved the Calcutta High Court challenging the acquittal of the third doctor.
The HC heard all the cases together. In 2004, Justice Gora Chand Dey in his judgment acquitted the convicted doctors, upheld the acquittal of the third and even made some observations against the petitioner. This was overturned in an apex court judgment.
Kunal then moved a complaint against the judge in Alipore court, and also in Calcutta HC. Both were dismissed. In 2012, Kunal asked the Bengal government to act against the judge. In 2017, he sent a Rs 100-crore compensation demand notice to the state for failing to act against the judge. He then moved the HC again, leading to the April 4 order. The HC in its order said that the complaint was filed late and did not have any cause of action.
