I.
Injuria Sine Damno
“Injuria sine damnum” is a Latin phrase that means “injury without damage.”
It refers to a situation where a person’s legal right is violated, but they
haven’t suffered any actual loss or harm.
In such cases, the person can still take legal action and sue for damages,
even if they haven’t suffered any tangible harm. This is because the law
recognizes that every violation of a legal right need to be addressed.
In simpler terms, if someone’s rights are violated, they can seek justice in
court, regardless of whether they’ve suffered any actual loss or not. This
principle is important in protecting people’s rights and ensuring that those
who violate them are held accountable.
In the case of Ashby vs. White, a person was wrongly stopped from voting
in an election by the defendant, who was the returning officer. Even though
the candidate to whom, the person wanted to vote for election won the
election the person still sued the defendant for damages.
Judgement: The court ruled In favour of the person, saying that their legal
right to vote had been violated. The judge, Lord Holt CJ, stated that the
defendant’s actions were an infringement of the person’s legal right, and
therefore, they were entitled to damages.
Principal laid down: This case illustrates the principle of “injuria sine
damnum,” which means that a person can seek damages for a violation of
their legal rights, even if they haven’t suffered any actual loss or harm. In
this case, the person’s right to vote was violated, and that’s enough to justify
damages, regardless of the outcome of the election.
In Bhim Singh Vs. State of J&K A.I.R. 1986 SC, the petitioner and MLA of
J&K Assembly was wrongfully detained by the police while he was on his way
to attend the assembly session. He was not produced before the magistrate
within requisite period. As a consequence of this, the member was deprived
of his constitutional right to attend the assembly session. There was also
violation of fundamental right to personal liberty granted under Article 21 of
the Constitution. The court held that there was a violation of a legal right due
to mischievous and malicious act and therefore the Supreme Court granted
an exemplary damage of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiff.
Legal Principle Laid Down:
This case is a classic example of Injuria Sine Damnum — violation of a legal
right without actual monetary loss.
Even if no pecuniary damage is proved, violation of a fundamental right
justifies compensation.
The case established that constitutional courts can grant monetary
compensation under public law remedy for violations of fundamental rights.
II. Damnum Sine injuria
“Damnum sine injuria” is a Latin phrase that means “damage without injury.”
It refers to situations where someone suffers harm or loss, but it’s not
considered a legal wrong. In such cases, the person who suffered the
damage can’t take legal action because their legal rights weren’t violated.
This happens when someone exercises their own legal rights, and it causes
harm to someone else as a consequence. In simpler terms, if someone does
something that’s allowed by law, and it causes harm to another person, the
harmed person can’t sue for damages. This is because the law prioritizes the
person’s right to act within their legal rights over the harm caused to others.
In the Gloucester Grammar School case, the defendant opened a school
near the plaintiff’s school and charged lower fees. However, this wasn’t seen
as a legal wrongdoing because it only caused the plaintiff to lose money, and
none of their legal rights were violated.
Judgement: The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy
since the defendant, in setting up a scool, exercised his legal right without
infringing the plaintiff’s legal right.
Principal laid down: The principal laid down in the instant case is every
person has a right to carry on his trade or profession in competition with
others, and if as a result of a healthy business competition, his rival suffers a
loss, then he is not entitled to recover any compensation. Here the
defendant by setting up his school near the plaintiff’s school had exercised
his legal right and therefore no action can lie against him.
