The legal concepts of “Injuria Sine Damno” and “Damnum Sine Injuria” are essential components of tort law that help determine the validity of legal claims based on harm and violation of legal rights. “Injuria Sine Damno” refers to the violation of a legal right without causing actual harm, while “Damnum Sine Injuria” deals with harm that occurs without a corresponding unauthorized infringement upon legal rights. Understanding these principles is crucial in assessing the grounds for legal actions and the interplay between harm and legal rights in various court decisions.


Injuria sine damno refers to the violation of a legal right without resulting in any harm or damage to the plaintiff. It encompasses two categories of torts: firstly, those that are actionable per se, meaning they can be pursued without demonstrating any actual damage or loss. For example, trespass to land can be legally addressed even if no harm follows the trespass. Secondly, there are torts that can only be pursued upon proof of damage caused by a specific act. Injuria sine damno pertains to the former category, where it is unnecessary to establish that the plaintiff has suffered harm as a consequence of the act. In such cases, the key requirement for a successful legal action is the demonstration that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated, indicating the existence of injuria.

In the landmark case of Ashby v. White, the principle of injuria sine damno was elucidated. Despite the absence of any tangible damage caused by the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff successfully pursued his legal claim. In this instance, the plaintiff, a qualified voter in a Parliamentary election, faced wrongful refusal by the defendant, a returning officer, to accept his vote. Notably, the plaintiff’s preferred candidate emerged victorious even in the absence of his vote. The court held the defendant liable, emphasizing the essential connection between the plaintiff’s right and the availability of a remedy. Chief Justice Holt stated, “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”

In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494), the petitioner, who served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Jammu and Kashmir, was unlawfully detained by the police while en route to attend a session of the assembly. The petitioner was not presented before the magistrate within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the legislator was unjustly deprived of his constitutional right to participate in the assembly session, constituting a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Although Bhim Singh had been released by the time the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the court, as a consequential relief, awarded him exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 50,000.

In the case of Municipal Board of Agra v. Asharfi Lal (AIR 1921 All 202), which falls under the principle of injuria sine damno, the plaintiff, having the right to be listed as an elector on the electoral roll, suffered wrongful omission of his name. Consequently, he was unjustly denied the opportunity to exercise his voting right. The court held that the plaintiff was eligible for damages due to this deprivation. However, it clarified that if a returning officer acts without malice, improper motive, and with honesty, and refuses to accept the vote of a qualified individual, no legal action can be brought against the officer.


This refers to harm that lacks an associated unauthorized infringement upon the plaintiff’s lawful rights. Simply causing substantial damage to someone is not legally actionable unless there is a concurrent violation of the plaintiff’s legal rights. This typically occurs when the lawful exercise of a right by one party leads to consequential harm to another. In essence, for a legal claim to be valid, it is not sufficient for damage to occur; there must also be a breach of the plaintiff’s legal rights.

In the Gloucester Grammar School Case, the defendant, who was a schoolmaster, established a competing school against that of the plaintiffs. The increased competition compelled the plaintiffs to reduce their fees significantly, from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal recourse for the resulting financial loss. Justice Hankford stated, “Damnum may be abseque injuria,” illustrating that mere financial harm without a concurrent violation of legal rights does not warrant legal action. To further clarify, he provided an analogy, explaining that if a neighboring mill is constructed, diminishing the profits of one’s mill, there is no legal claim, but if the miller obstructs the water supply or engages in any similar nuisance, legal action may be pursued as per the law.

In Mogul Steamship Co. vs. McGregor Gow and Co., 1892 AC 25, a number of steamship companies combined together and drove the plaintiff company out of the tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendants had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their profits.

In the case of Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt (1860) 8 MIA 103, falling under the doctrine of “Damnum absque injuria,” the plaintiff owned a tug utilized for government purposes in the Hugli River. When a troop ship arrived, the plaintiff demanded high charges for towing, prompting the Superintendent of Marine to issue orders prohibiting the future employment of the tug. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages. The court held that the action could not be sustained because harm to one’s interests, without a breach of a legal right, is insufficient grounds for legal action. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the complained-of act should be legally wrongful in the circumstances, prejudicially affecting the party complaining by infringing upon some legal right. Mere harm to the party’s interests, however direct, is not a basis for legal remedy.


In conclusion, the legal doctrines of “Injuria Sine Damno” and “Damnum Sine Injuria” provide essential frameworks for understanding the interplay between harm and violation of legal rights in tort law. “Injuria Sine Damno” highlights the significance of demonstrating a breach of a legal right, even in the absence of tangible harm, while “Damnum Sine Injuria” emphasizes the necessity of a breach of legal rights alongside substantial damage for a legal claim to be valid.

The discussed cases, such as Ashby v. White, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Municipal Board of Agra v. Asharfi Lal, Gloucester Grammar School Case, etc. offer valuable illustrations of these doctrines in diverse legal contexts. These principles serve as fundamental guides in tort law, shaping the evaluation of legal claims based on harm and infringement of legal rights.

Enquire Now

whatsapp-icon Enquire Now Call Now