Author Name:   naman754

It is often said that ‘India needs change’. Various Laws and Rules are challenged every other day, which may or may not be targeting at a better tomorrow. From decision of Indian Rupee Devaluation of 1991 to Demonetization of 2016, every other legal policy of Indian Government has been questioned for once. However, criticism of legal system of India doesn’t stop here. Law of Torts is one subject which exists in spirit in India but isn’t appreciated enough, despite the fact of it’s universal applicability. Law of Torts is yet another leg to Civil Law which attracts tortuous liability if such a prohibited action is committed. This subject is of such significance and relevance, that, it is recognized by and prevails in every legal system of the world, yet is somehow underrated in Indian regards. In the world of multiplicity of laws, this paper attempts to bring about and redefine the importance of Law of Torts along with it’s modern constituents, brief comparison and analysis of the same with distinct legal systems of the world with Indian scenario including eminent case laws and statutes. It further covers special mention of existent situation of Law of Torts in India and urgent reformations suggested thereon. While giving practical illustrations of pitiful fettles, this paper extensively glorifies keys to various peculiar conditions arising as noted. Therefore, this paper shall act as supplement to thoughts to lawmakers, Law Commission of India, Ministry of Law & Justice and should be of interest to public in general. To this end, this paper might be considered as an external aid to interpretation of respective statutes and might also be kept for consideration by Hon’ble Courts throughout and under India while delivering judgments with their prudent and efficient minds. Additionally, this paper acts as a whistleblower and a watchdog over problematic situations arising in Indian context, also giving reference of foreign laws and cases, hoping for immediate development in field of law and social sciences in India, calling for a better tomorrow.

Introduction

Before learning about the various aspects of Law of Torts and reformations needed in India, it is expedient for us to understand what a ‘tort’ is.  Tort is a wrong done to a person, but it is not a criminal wrong. Rather, it’s a branch of civil law tree. It is a civil wrong however, not breach of contract or breach of trust either, it is a civil wrong of it’s own kind. When a tort has been committed, it is necessary that there should be an injury of legal nature. And for such an injury, there should be a legal remedy available.

The term “tort” is a French word, which literally means “injury or wrong.” It has been derived from Latin term “tortus” which means “twisted or crooked act.” Therefore, the term implies that it is a conduct, which is unlawful and crooked. It maybe compared to the Sanskrit term “jimha” or English term “wrong” or Roman term “delict.”

Definitions of ‘torts’ by Eminent Jurists, Cases & Statutes :-

1.      Salmond finds the term as “civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation.”

2.      Winfield held that “tortious liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.”

3.      S.P. Singh maintains that “tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law which results in an infringement of private legal right of another and for which civil action for unliquidated damages, injunction, specific restitution of property or even self-help, as the case maybe, can be maintained.

4.      It was held in the case Rogers vs. Rajendra Dutt that Tort is an act or omission which prejudicial affects, another and some legal right giving him a right to claim damages.

5.      The Indian Legislature recognizes the concept of torts through The Limitations Act, 1963 which states that “Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust.”

It is found that Indian Legislature’s definition doesn’t carry the scope of the term to a very large extent. However, to my belief, definition by S.P. Singh is the broadest and most reliable one. For purpose of better understanding, ‘common law’ means the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions. It is law based on precedents. And ‘unliquidated damages’ means the amount owed to a plaintiff in a torts suit that cannot be predetermined, such as compensation against mental agony, pain and suffering.

In addition to the definition, it shall be necessary to comment that in India, litigation for torts is a very limited and restricted one. There have been efforts made by Legislature to lay down codified statutes regulating the Law of Torts, such as The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. In fact, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 itself contains several provisions regarding actions which are treated as criminal offences but are otherwise torts as well. For example, wrongful restraint and confinement, assault, house trespass, defamation and others. Also, it shall not be incorrect to state that, through Public Interest Litigation, penalty is imposed upon guilty persons relying on strict, constructive or other liability principles.

However, there are only handful enactments regulating the matter. Biggest reason being for limited application of the said law is lack of consciousness and knowledge about rights granted to oneself. Other reasons being absence of relevant codified law, problem of recognition by Court of Law of an action being a tort (or trifle matters not being given much importance), slow justice delivery system, low compensation amounts in award and others. India is yet not modern enough to explore and establish strict norms for tortuous liability, simply because overburdened Legislature and Judiciary cannot oversee every activity that becomes a tort. There are numerous ways to commit a tort and this numerical maybe so large that it is almost impossible to specify each and every activity as punishable under different laws.

Law of Torts in India is based on English Common Law, which is the product of judicial decisions. In fact, following the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corp., Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr, it was stated in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors that:-

“There is no statutory law in India, unlike in England, regulating damages for tortious liability. In the absence of statutory law or established principles of law laid by this Court or High Courts consistent with Indian conditions and circumstances, this Court selectedly applied the common law principles evolved by the Courts in England on grounds of justice, equity and good conscience. Common law principles        of tort evolved by the courts in England may be applied in India to the extent of suitability and applicability to the Indian conditions.”

Few instances which are punishable in distinguished foreign laws are as follows:-

1.      Unlawful detention/arrest of body of a person.

2.      Negligence caused in treatment of a patient by one or more medical practitioners.

3.      Injury or death, as the case maybe, caused by items prepared by a person or company, including serving foods, liquor, cold drink, medicine and others.

4.      Loss caused due to power cut, water supply cut, or cut in other essential amenities.

5.      Diseases caused by environment maintained by some agency, including diseases caused because of pollution.

In fact, in a recent matter, Oxford University had been directed to face trial where a suit was filed complaining the varsity for "hopelessly bad" and "boring" teaching which allegedly resulted in him getting a second class degree and in turn led to loss of earnings in his career as a lawyer. The above said events are merely handful. There are numerous other scenarios where actions can be brought in foreign countries under Law of Torts. Considering the aforementioned five events, actionable claim can be brought in Court of Law in India also, however, there are not many codified statutes dealing in the same. Compensation or other awards maybe granted concerning the event through Writ Petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India or suit for damages, or suit for recovery, or suit under Specific Relief Act, 1963 or other appropriate suits.

In other words, remedy can be sought even in Indian scenario but without strict norms and regulations governing them. These laws exist in the spirit of justice but not upon the face of it. It runs in the blood of the judicial system but it is not as muscular or apparent as other laws.

The main objective of having these laws is based on the principle “alterum non leader” which means “to hurt nobody by word or by deed.” In the case Jay Laxmi Salt Words (P) Ltd vs. State of Gujarat it was stated that the purpose of having these laws controlling torts and claims thereon is to prevent human from hurting one other, intentionally or unintentionally, which may extend to preservation of life, property, reputation or anything in their name. It was further elaborated that :-

“Truly speaking, entire law of torts is founded and structured on morality that no one has a right to injure or harm others intentionally or even innocently. Therefore, it would be primitive to class strictly or close finality the ever-expanding and growing horizon of tortious liability. Even for social development, orderly growth of the society and cultural refineness, the liberal approach to tortious liability by courts is more conducive.”

Therefore, action brought against a tort is usually either a claim for pecuniary compensation or specific restitution, as the case maybe, in respect of damage suffered as the result of invasion of a legally protected interest. It was held in case Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors that :-

“The law of torts prevents one human to hurt another. All torts consist of violation of a right in the plaintiff. Tort law, therefore, is primarily evolved to compensate the injured by compelling the wrong-doer to pay for the damage done. The purpose of the law of tort is to adjust these losses and offer compensation for injuries by one person as a result of the conduct of another.”

To my belief, Law of Torts in India, though not as codified as another country, however, is running in the soul of Justice delivery system. Due to the fact that this law, not being as rigid as it should be, justice sometimes gets severed. It is true that spectrum of Law of Torts is ever expanding, nevertheless, what can be observed by a prudent mind should also be laid down with strict polices so that Judiciary is not further overburdened to enact rules of it’s own.

Constituents of Torts:-

Generally speaking, tort can be classified into any action or omission done performed by the defendant of the suit against plaintiff of the suit, which was without a reasonable cause or excuse and because of this conduct, the plaintiff has suffered some legal damage or injury. The following are the constituents of a tort:-

1.      Wrongful Act or Omission performed by the defendant of the suit.

What it means is there must be some activity done by a person which violates the legal rights of another person. Some movement, touching of articles, entering on land, physical interaction where there exists lawful right of another person, or a breach of duty and more, fall under this category. It means that a person has performed some act which he wasn’t expected to do, or has abstained himself from doing something which he was supposed to do. This breach of duty should, however, be imposed by law. Wherein he doesn’t act like a reasonable and prudent mind, he is liable to be tried for such wrongful act or omission, as the case maybe. But the crucial test of legally wrongful act or omission is it’s prejudicial effect on the legal right of another.

Such as in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwati where some parts of a clock tower fell on some people, the Apex Court held that the respective area Municipal Corporation was under duty to maintain the tower and to look after it’s repairs, which were omitted. Therefore, deaths were caused due to falling of such articles arising out of Corporation’s failure to maintain and repair the tower and thus, the Corporation was held liable.

2.      Violation of Legal Right

The following was held in the case Rogers vs. Rajendra Dutt :-

“The act complained of, should, under circumstances, be legally wrongful as regards the party complaining, that is, it must prejudicially affect him in some legal right, merely that it will, however directly, do him harm in his interest is not enough.”

Therefore, there must be violation of a legal right, and not merely conflict of interests.

Now, what is a legal right? Austin attempted to define “legal right” as a faculty which resides in a determinate party or parties by virtue or a given law and which avails against a party (or parties or answers to a duty lying on a party or parties) other than the party or parties whom it resides.

To have appropriate remedy, rights have been broadly classified into following two heads:-

a)                  Private Rights – all rights which are available to a person in individual capacity. It includes all rights which belong to a certain particular person only. Every violation of such right automatically denotes an injury against which action is taken. As per the case Allen vs. Flood the following are included in set of Private Rights:-

i)                    Right of reputation (safety to public image)

ii)                  Right of bodily safety and freedom (safety to body)

iii)                Right of property (safety to estate)

b)                  Public Rights – all rights which are available to members of a society generally, such as, right to earn income, right to legal aid, right to be served with justice and more. When a public right is infringed, liability does not arise per se. Punishment is inflicted when there lies a special injury in addition to the injury suffered by public in general. It was held in the case Lyon vs. Fishmongers’ Company that no actions will lie against an infringement (not authorized by law) of a public right unless there exists in addition to the injury to the public, a special, peculiar and substantial damage to occasioned the plaintiff.

3.      Legal damage/injury

Law of Torts operates relying upon two maxims, namely “injuria sine damno” and “damnum sine injuria.” The former means violation of a legal right which may or may not result into causing of harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. For example, right to healthy environment. On the other hand, latter one means an injury or damage sustained but without violation of a legal right. For example, ousting of a competitor from market without use of anticompetitive practices.

Ashby vs. White is the classic case where violation of a legal right took place yet no damage was sustained. Facts were such that, defendant wrongfully refused to register vote of a qualified voter at the parliamentary elections. The candidate for whom the vote was tendered did actually win the elections and no loss was suffered by the rejection of vote. Despite the fact that no injury was sustained as the desired candidate anyway win elections, Court held that legal right to vote was violated and it was thus an action lay. Thus, we can understand that case of “injuria sine damno” shall be an actionable claim even if there is no proof of any injury or even if no actual damage is proved.

On the other hand, Mogul Steamship Co. vs. McGregor Gow & Co. is the classic example where no legal right has been infringed yet damage has been done. Facts were such that a number of steamship companies joined hands and lowered their freight with a view to drive out one of the competitors in the market, which happened. Though it’s an old case, yet it holds good subject to the Competition Policy of the State. For example, in India, such an activity would be an anticompetitive practice under The Competition Act, 2002.

Resultant of these two maxims is, that there are torts which are actionable per se (i.e. which do not need proofs of damage) and not actionable per se (i.e. which need proofs of actual damage). As the case maybe, when conditions are fulfilled, legal remedy is sought.

4.      Legal Remedy

Legal remedy is the last constituent yet the most influential one. This essential is based on the maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium” which means there is no wrong if there is no remedy. What this means is, a tort is actionable only to the extent if there exists a lawful remedy to the said wrong. For example, unauthorized trespass of land is prohibited under many laws throughout globe.

But, if there doesn’t exist any remedy against the said wrong, claim is not maintainable. For example, suit for damages can be sought in case of destruction of property but not for a moral wrong, such as disobedience to speech of a spiritual guru. Or, as put in better words “ex turpi causa non oritur action” i.e. an action does not arise from an immoral or a base cause.

Law of Torts and the World:-

Law of Torts of USA is based on common law along with strict norms of respective State. They have their respective Civil Codes dealing with law of torts. Unlike Indian system, their law is more organized, better schemed and with a goal to have payment of compensation. They have a more categorized Law of Torts, which recognizes three main heads, which are as follows:-

A.    Intentional Torts (requires intention, act, act’s result, and a proximate causation.)

B.     Negligent Torts (based upon failure to fulfill a duty of reasonable care by a prudent mind, which is the actual cause of damage done.)

C.     Liability defined Torts (includes principles of Strict Liability, Product Liability and other)

What is common between Law of Torts of entire USA is that they understand the mental agony one goes if a tort is committed against a person. Litigation in Torts is much high in number over there. Following are the common objectives to be secured by Law of Torts in USA :-

1.      To develop a peaceful means for dispute settlement

2.      To restore the injured in original shape by way of payment of compensation

3.      To have a deterrent effect against the wrongful actions

4.      To create an environment socially aware of it’s responsibilities

5.      Idea is to restore the injured person back to his place and not merely punish the wrong doer. Therefore, penalty is usually very high, which allows suffering person, restore himself, if possible, to his original situation.

French law of Torts is an entirely codified one. They recognize the concept through Article 1382 of the French Civil Code, which states that “any act whatever of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the one by whose fault it occurred, to compensate it.” Additionally Article 1383 provides that “One shall be liable not only by reason of one’s acts, but also by reason of one’s imprudence or negligence.” On the other hand, Australia is one such country which is running on precedents to a greater extent rather than on legislations. Though Australia refers laws implemented and judgments pronounced in UK, however, from time and now they have attempted to make identity of their own in this respect. Such as, Australian law doesn’t require the wrongdoer to have intention to trespass, whereas the law of UK holds intention as an important element to constitute the offence of trespass.

Reformations – History and New Needs:-

It is a very well settled concept of sociology that “society is always changing.” Society is never in a stagnant and still position, it keeps on changing itself from time to time. Clue here is that when society changes, appropriate law is required, which may be achieved by way of amendment to present the law or by enacting another. India is a society with race of about 1.3 billion people with multiple topographies having more than 8 religions existing. This means stagnant relations cannot be observed. This is may be why Parliament of India never attempted to make strict norms relating to Law of Torts. It is yet another true statement that Torts is an ever-growing subject. Better put as “The society develops the law and the law develops the society.”

However, difficulty which arises here is the dispute settlement and justice delivery system. The customs and traditions of particular sect of the society applies it’s own laws for dispute settlement, which may be soft or harsh in nature. Many traditions of the ancient times recognized beheading as the punishment to guilty person. Of course, beheading someone itself is a crime in the modern era, however, these traditions have been proved to be an obstacle in the course of justice in today’s world. Since there are no strict norms, there are no regulations for appropriate justice as well. Indian Judiciary relies upon precedents for this matter. Though, our judiciary is somewhat influenced by judgments of UK, we have made our own principles too.

Main idea behind enacting a law is multi-fold, but one cannot deny that one such idea is benefit to the people of the State. If the law is outdated, it can be said that justice is delivered mere physically but not morally. Having said that in this behalf, precedents do play a very crucial role but they may get outdated some day or the other. Thus, what we need is quick amendments to existing laws concerning the Law of Torts, along with future-proof legislations. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and others are beautiful examples of smart wits of the British. Even after completion of centuries, many of British-made laws hold good in India. A law may be changed afterwards at any time, but for such changes be made, we at least require the law to be there Therefore, having strict laws which are able to adapt to the needs of the future is recommended.

Second concern is award of damages. ‘Damages’ is the compensation amount ordered by the Court to be paid by defendant to claimant. Since there are no certain fixed rules in this behalf, way to the Court and from there too, it may become expensive. If nothing else, role of obstacle is played by the legal practitioner, who charges fees for his services at his will. Many foreign countries have enacted regulations that a legal practitioner is entitled to receive only a fixed percentage out of the award given. But as we see in India, legal practitioners having limited control over them by BAR Council of India in this behalf, they charge fees of their choice. Law Commission quoted one of Supreme Court’s statement in it’s “Costs in Civil Litigation” that “equally urgent is the need to revise the advocate’s fee provided in the Schedule to the Rules, most of which are outdated and have no correlation with the prevailing rates of fees.”

Even when the claimant is fortunate enough to afford litigation for his cause, it is another common move of the ‘Indian’ defendant to play insolvent. The benefit of playing the character with no money many times allows the defendant to pay lesser amount of damages than the appropriate one. Though financial statements of the person concerned are presented before the Court, but it is yet another skill of an Indian to show on record how poor he is to file tax returns. Manipulations in the system is the signature move of every Indian stuck in litigation.

Third concern in the difference between amount of damages. Our system understands the concept of necessity while determining compensatory amounts. Necessity is understood as not just the bare essentials of life, but whatever the claimant was used to in his daily life before the occurring of incident. Due to difference in economic conditions of separate claimants, different amounts are awarded, which causes disparity. Due to this disparity, comes loss of faith in the justice delivery system. Or, put in better words, per capita cost varies in terms of damages amount in these torts cases. When a person knows that the rich men will get more compensation than him, if some tort is committed against him, he will instead of approaching the Court, will attempt to clear out the matter himself. Additionally, because of better wealth status, media also focuses on those who are suitable for TRP ratings. A common man is flashed on media only when he is bold enough to strengthen his voice in public with wits. While a rich man is able to afford a reputed/famous lawyer, a common man may not be able to hire the same.

Because of this difference, their case doesn’t receive the proper attention and treatment as it was meant to be. Ultimately, due to media highlights and/or political pressures, compensatory amounts may vary. This is allowed, again because of absence of statutes in various fields of Law of Torts. Merely because our system runs on the common law system in first place and then the legislative control is opted, we do not have enough strict norms dealing with the same. After implementation of the National Green Tribunal by virtue of The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 only we have seen change in the trend-wind. Tribunal has been acting as a watchdog, a rather ferocious one, to look over any trespassers to territory of healthy environment. It has slapped various corporations and entities with heavy fines on those damaging the environment.

With more awareness and modern thoughts, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also accepted the new era and has made itself more integrated into and compatible to the society. Not only the Apex Court is supervising every activity of the State, but it is now better understanding the needs of the new society of India. Law Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India both have recommended from time to time to enact various laws, some are accepted; some are pending. It is only Legislature which has to understand the need of having strict norms rather than letting the system run on precedents. It is said in particularly with reference to Law of Torts.

Fourth concern is the statistics of civil litigation. India has always been known for having systematic procedures in field of litigation. Because of this step-by-step mechanism, we have arrived to a situation where Judiciary is overburdened. Not only is the Judiciary working overtime and overnight with authentic cases, a major fraction is filed only to create more pressure on the defendant. Such as, if a divorce case is filed, it is another tactic of the lawyer to file injunction against the husband to have him restrained of having any conversation/interaction with the wife except other than the Court. What is needed is, making a stringent rule, not applicable on just tort cases but across all the judiciary that, one who files the case, shall be the person liable to pay litigation fees of the opposite party if in case he loses the matter. This will allow a number of unauthentic upcoming cases be avoided. We Indians just love to save money. Although there is practice of filing false cases with a view to create pressure or extort hefty amounts from defendant, it is also suggested that offences relating to furnishing false evidence and false information and other concerned matters be taken very seriously.

Fifth suggestion concerns the system of payment of compensation. Like there are provisions in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which talk about liability of the defendant to pay for the death of the victim to the incident even in case of absence of negligence, it is suggested that other fields of Law of Torts must also be having similar principles where claimant is able to secure some reasonable amount against the act done, if nothing else. A social security scheme/insurance policies may be introduced that will serve such concerned victims without unnecessary hassle. These types of schemes will allow our Judiciary to be relieved off prolonged litigation and in fact, secure needs of the unfortunate. Establishment of separate Tribunals is also suggested.

Additionally, in order to assure that claimants are entitled to sufficient compensation, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 comes very handy, which permits the Court while sentencing an accused to fine, to award compensation out of the said fine to any person for loss or injury caused by the offence when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court. It also provides that a Court may demand from the accused (apart from the fine) to indemnify the victim, by way of compensation.

As understood, Law of Torts is an ever-growing subject. It shall change accordingly when society changes. But what is needed to be understood is that, what we can see should be codified. What Supreme Court of India has laid down and Law Commission of India has recommended is usually accepted and codified by Legislature at a very later stage. For example, we can look about several amendments done to The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 concerning specifically the law of arrest. All the amendments were in fact orders by Supreme Court of India given in the case of Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs. State of West Bengal, State of U.P

However, it must be admitted that Legislature has enacted several wise laws as well. Such as, The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and various others. These enactments have allowed the State to impose penalty on those who damage the environment. Principle of “duty of reasonable care” was thus introduced by these enactments. Acts like The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and The Factories Act, 1948 also hold great value here.

Even where the apprehending person seeks preventive measures, he may approach the Court under Part III of The Specific Relief Act, 1963. An injunction may be granted to prevent damage to property or life, trespass of property or body, or causation or continuance of nuisance. Mechanism for recovery of property, moveable or immoveable, is also prescribed in the Act. In fact, the right of way can also be challenged, subject to customs and The Limitation Act, 1963.

Supreme Court of India has also acted vigilant in this regard. There are numerous “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India” cases, however, while deciding the famous Oleum Gas Leak case the Apex Court firmly held the ground on absolute liability principle. Court insisted on not letting industries go away without payment of their liability against damage done to the environment. It observed the need to depart from the usual trend of imposing fine only on contravening the law and declare that damage to the environment shall be a punishable act. Supreme Court has time to time held that personal benefits out of business while damaging the society or environment is not acceptable. It has frequently laid numerous strict norms for conduction of business in this regard.

Another smart play by the Supreme Court of India was evolution of the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Late Justice P.N. Bhagwati gave this idea for common benefit for all through the case of S.P. Gupta vs. President Of India & Ors. This system is in fact another watchdog concerning the changing needs of the society. The following was held in the case:-

“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”

Main idea behind establishing this concept was to eradicate technicalities attracting ‘locus standi.’ The term means what is the relation of petitioner to the said case, or what interest does he have in the said matter. Many a times, judges were forced to dismiss the plea on the basis that petitioner had to right to file the said case. Also, prior to this judgment was the red-tape involved system of approaching the respective State Pollution Control Board. It was up to the Board whether or not to approach the Court. At times, corrupt board members used to settle dispute with the said polluting agency and not file the case. Resultant was, these members were obtain illicit funds and polluting environment was virtually legitimate.

By virtue of establishment of PIL system, a citizen was now allowed to enter the Court to fight for his right of healthy and safe environment. He was also entitled to receive free legal aid by virtue of the judgment Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though the concept of PIL was need of ‘that’ hour, it is presently being misused by notorious lawyers in order to achieve fame. Some also quote PIL as ‘Publicity Interest Litigation.’ However, judiciary is already aware of the situation and it imposes heavy fines on those who attempt to secure personal gain instead of benefit of society.

Thus, it can be said that Law of Torts, though attempted to be reformed by the Legislature and the Judiciary every now and then, is still a weak subject in India. Not only there exist mere handful number of Tribunals/Commissions dealing with very specific types of tort, the non-recognized ones are adjudicated through usual process i.e. Civil Courts, who’s litigation costs are no friendly and duration is no short. Consumer Forum, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, State Electricity Regulatory Commission are few such examples of authorities dealing in modern Law of Torts if India. It is admitted that there exists a priority for any law to be enacted and enforced, it is however opposed that Law of Torts is continuously an ignored subject on part of Legislature, probably because of the view that it will attract more litigation, and litigation has always been seen as a negative approach from eyes of common Indian. Continuous and unaddressed distress shall erupt at some point of time. Cutting on Court fees, enactment of strict norms and regulations through Acts, codified and simplified procedure, limitation for adjudication in terms for duration, intensity of burden of proof, imposing strict responsibility and non-rebuttable procedures amongst others are few of the subjects which can be thus discussed.

Conclusion

Law of Torts is a subject which has not got it’s appreciation in India. Having the absence of single/distinguished codified statutes for the aforementioned has actually led to a situation where common man has to approach Judiciary and invoke his alternate options, which are often not to his comfort, thereby discouraging them to having their right exercised, further causing loss of faith in the whole system. It is evident that Legislature had made several attempts to enact laws while Judiciary has supplemented it by inserting additional situations and exploring the applicability of laws, but a time has come where common man is in stress at all times and his issues are not being addressed, merely because they are inferior in hierarchy in the priority list. Admitting that enacting criminal, income tax, property-related laws are on the top of the list, but where does a common man go? Where should he submit his grievances? Who shall adjudicate better? All of these are few of questions unanswered till now. Common man is in stress and mental agony. Contributors to his situation include after-sale service harassment by companies, especially MNCs, not forgetting the poor quality of service by Indian companies; unnecessarily delayed procedures for settlement of dispute with respect to claims; poor quality of products commercially or otherwise sold; absence of specialized adjudicating authorities, especially in emerging science and technology like Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and mobile network service providers; lack of awareness about rights and duties, which are mere few of the complete list. It is about time that Legislature focuses on enacting laws strictly dealing with Law of Torts so a revolution is welcomed which will put an end to the silent but disastrous misery of a common man. Laws codified by Parliament of India have been always given credit for being well-researched, balanced and target-hitting. This talent should also be applied to this concerned field of law. What is the future of India is a question nobody can answer. It is cannot be held incorrect that Republic of India is going in the direction of being a country dominating the world. Improvising domestic laws will not only strengthen faith of resident citizens, but will also uplift the image of the country internationally when modern thoughts are their basis.

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!