- student, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Tort law is the field of law in which courts give a remedy for private or civil wrongs or injuries by enabling a lawsuit for (often monetary) damages. Thus, the objective is to return the sufferer to his or her pre-injury state. It has been stated that India, the world’s biggest democracy, has a very undeveloped tort law. The majority of Indian tort law emerged after British occupation. Nonetheless, Hindu law, in its varied manifestations and evolutions, is the world’s oldest continuous legal system. For numerous millennia, Hinduism was India’s exclusive religion and legal system; it coexisted with Muslim and Christian legal systems in the previous millennia, but it remained culturally dominant and continues to apply to the majority of Indians to some extent now. When we consider the lengthy history of Hindu law in conjunction with India’s tremendous variety of culture, language, and even governmental systems throughout history, the issue becomes even more perplexing. Furthermore, the persistent underdevelopment of Indian tort law is unexpected in light of the Indian constitution’s strong dedication to both compassion and comprehensiveness, which was passed in 1950 (three years after independence from Britain). Tort law is supposed to have evolved from the ancient maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium (Every right needs a remedy). This paper examines whether Indians are endowed with less rights in this critical area and what are we to make of this underdevelopment in relation to a central issue in practically all legal systems i.e. how to restore the victim’s dignity and grant reparation, where any component of Indian civilization or culture that elucidates on this lacuna.
Keywords: English Law, Identification of negligence, Hindu private law, Dharmashastras
[This article belongs to Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law(jltcpl)]
1. OP Dwivedi, “Environmental Ethics: Our Dharma to the Environment” (Sanchar Publishing House, 1994) 169; Christopher K Chapple, ‘Hinduism, Jainsim, and Ecology’ 1998 (10:1) Earth Ethics. https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/mq:33186/SOURCE1.
2. Sushant Sailan, “History of the Removal of the Fundamental Right to Property”, (2002) Centre for Civil Society, 231–255. https://ccs.in/internship_papers/2002/25.pdf.
3. Bergkamp , G J Postema, “Risks Wrongs and Responsibility: Coleman’s Liberal Theory of Commutative Justice”, (1993) 103 Yale Law Journal 889. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3186639.
4. RA Epstien, “Simple Rules for a Complex World” (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 17th February 1995) Page No 38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764686?seq=1#metadata_ info_tab_contents.
5. J Gordley, “Tort Law in the Aristotelian Tradition” in Owen (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 1997) 157, 158; E J Weinrib, ‘Law as a Kantian Idea of Reason’ (1987) 87 Columbia Law Review 472. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24562818? seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
6. GC Keating, “Fairness and Two Fundamental Questions in the Tort Law of Accidents: Olin Working Paper No 99–21” (University of Southern California Law School, Los Angles, 1999) 28, 61. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r34960.pdf.
7. RH Coase, “Notes on the Problem of Social Cost’ in R H Coase, the Firm, The Market And The Law” (University of Chicago Press, 1990). https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA145572327&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02733072&p=AONE&sw=w.
8. RA Posner, “Wealth Maximisation and Tort Law: A Philosophical Inquiry” in D G Owen (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 1997). https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/mq:33186/SOURCE1.
9. Karl N Llewellyn, “The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and its Study”, (Oceana, Dobbs Ferry, 1960) 12 cited in Lucas Bergkamp, Environment and Liability (Kluwer Law International, 2001) 67. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bramble-bush-karl-n-llewellyn/1101869215.
10. Guido Calabresi, “Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts: An Essay for Harry Kalven, Jr.” (1975) 43 University of Chicago Law Review 69, 105. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1599192.
11. C A E Goodhart, “Economics and the Law: Too Much One Way traffic?” (1997) 60 Modern Law Review 1, 13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1097288.
12. MR Chertow and DC Esty (eds), “Thinking ecologically: an introduction” in MR Chertow and DC Esty (eds), “Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy” (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997) 1–16, in Bergkamp, above n 76, 73. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6598-9_24.
13. Mark Sagoff, “The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment” (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988). https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1356962.
14. G Williams, “The Aims of the Law of Tort” (1951) 4 Current Legal Problems 137; Perry, Ronen “The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts: A Descriptive Theory” (2006) 73 Tennesse Law Review 177. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18742/FoxT.pdf;sequence=1.
|Received||February 1, 2022|
|Accepted||February 8, 2022|
|Published||February 14, 2022|