Injuria Sine Damno

Held. The Court held that he had not been produced before either judicial officer, that the police had acted deliberately and mala fide, and that there was a gross violation of his rights under articles 21 and 22(2). Since he was already free no order of release was needed, but the Court held that it had jurisdiction to compensate a victim of such an invasion by awarding monetary compensation, following Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, and directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000.

Why it matters here. It is the modern Indian illustration of the maxim, and it makes two points a student should take. First, the wrong lay in the violation of the right, and the fact that he was at liberty again by the time of the judgment did not defeat it. Second, the damages were not nominal at all: Rs. 50,000 in 1985 was a substantial sum, which shows that "no damage" does not mean "no money".

When are the damages nominal and when substantial?

This is the part students get wrong, because the textbook sentence "damages are nominal" is only half true.

Nominal damages are a token sum awarded to mark the violation of a right where no real loss followed and the violation was not aggravated. A rupee, or a hundred rupees, serves the purpose.

Substantial damages are awarded where the violation itself is serious, even if there is no financial loss. The liberty of a citizen detained for four days by a deliberate abuse of power is not marked by a token, and Bhim Singh proves it.

Contemptuous damages are the opposite case: a derisory sum awarded where the plaintiff's right was technically violated but the court thinks the suit should never have been brought. Chapter [Kinds of Damages] separates all three.

A worked example

Arun, a shareholder, is refused entry to a company's annual general meeting by a security guard acting on the company's instructions, although he holds a valid entry card. The resolutions passed at the meeting would have been passed anyway; his single vote could not have changed anything.

Has he lost anything? No, not in money and not in outcome.

Has a right of his been infringed? Yes, his right as a shareholder to attend and vote.

Does he have an action? Yes. This is injuria sine damno and the reasoning of Ashby v. White applies exactly: it is no answer to say that the vote would have made no difference, because on that argument a company could exclude every shareholder whose vote would not change a result.

What will he get? Probably nominal damages, and a declaration. If the exclusion was deliberate and humiliating, a court may award more, as in Bhim Singh.

Distinctions that carry marks

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean every tort is actionable without proof of damage. Negligence and nuisance both require damage. The maxim applies to the torts that are actionable per se.

It does not mean the damages will be small. Bhim Singh is the answer to that.

It does not mean the plaintiff can invent a right. He must identify a legal right, which is why the maxim and its opposite are always taught together.

It does not mean a constitutional claim is the same as a tort claim. Compensation under articles 32 and 226 is a public law remedy, distinct from the private law action, as chapter [Constitutional Tort] explains.

Quick revision

1. Injuria sine damno: violation of a legal right without loss; actionable, because the law presumes damage.
2. Torts actionable per se: trespass to land, to the person and to goods, libel, and the four kinds of slander actionable without special damage.
3. Ashby v. White (1703): an elector wrongfully prevented from voting recovered damages although his candidate won.
4. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494: Rs. 50,000 for four days of unlawful detention, articles 21 and 22(2) violated.
5. Damages may be nominal, substantial or contemptuous, depending on the gravity of the violation and the conduct of the parties.
6. The maxim is the mirror of damnum sine injuria, and every problem on either is solved by asking which legal right was infringed.

Test yourself

1. Explain injuria sine damno with decided cases. The maxim means the violation of a legal right without any accompanying loss. Where a right is infringed the law presumes damage, so the action lies without proof of loss, and the torts that are actionable per se, trespass to land, to the person and to goods, and libel, all depend on it. In Ashby v. White, decided in 1703, a qualified elector was wrongfully prevented from voting; the candidate he supported was elected anyway, so he lost nothing, and the court nevertheless decreed damages, applying ubi jus ibi remedium. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, a member of the Legislative Assembly was arrested and kept in custody for four days without being produced before a magistrate; by the time the case was decided he was free, and the Supreme Court still awarded Rs. 50,000, holding that the invasion of his rights under articles 21 and 22(2) could not be wished away by his release.

2. "Where a legal right is violated the law presumes damage." Explain. The proposition is the working content of injuria sine damno. Certain rights are so basic that their violation is treated as harm in itself, and no separate proof of loss is required: the right to possession of land, to bodily integrity and liberty, to possession of goods, and to reputation in the case of libel. If proof of loss were required, these rights would be unenforceable in exactly the cases where enforcement matters most, since a trespasser who damages nothing and a detaining officer who feeds his prisoner well would both be immune. The presumption also explains why the damages are often nominal: the object of the action is vindication rather than compensation.

3. Are the damages in a case of injuria sine damno always nominal? No. They are nominal where the violation is technical and the plaintiff has suffered nothing beyond the infringement itself, and a token sum is enough to mark the right. They are substantial where the violation is itself serious, and the leading Indian example is Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, where Rs. 50,000 was awarded for four days of deliberate and mala fide detention. A court may also award contemptuous damages, a derisory sum, where the right was technically infringed but the suit should not have been brought.

4. Distinguish the two maxims with an example of each. Injuria sine damno is the violation of a legal right without loss and is actionable: an elector wrongly turned away in Ashby v. White, or a legislator unlawfully detained in Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494. Damnum sine injuria is loss without the violation of a legal right and is not actionable: a schoolmaster whose pupils leave for a lawful rival school in the Gloucester Grammar School case, or plaintiffs whose religious feelings are hurt by a film in Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj 13. In the first there is a wrong without harm; in the second, harm without a wrong. The single question that separates them is whether a legal right of the plaintiff was infringed.