injuria sine damnum can be applicable in today's world for simple infringements of

rights, even in cases where there is no tangible financial loss. Many legal systems
recognize the importance of protecting individuals' rights and interests beyond just
economic considerations. Here are a few examples of how injuria sine damno
could apply:

Privacy Rights: In cases where an individual's privacy rights are violated, such as
unauthorized surveillance or dissemination of private information, the affected
individual may have a claim for injuria sine damno, even if they cannot
demonstrate specific financial damages.

Freedom of Expression: If someone's freedom of expression is unlawfully

restricted, such as through censorship or suppression of speech, they may have a
claim for injuria sine damno, even if they do not suffer direct financial harm.

Discrimination: In instances of discrimination based on factors such as race,

gender, religion, or sexual orientation, individuals may suffer injuria (injury) to
their dignity and rights, even if they do not experience financial losses as a result.

Civil Liberties Violations: Any infringement of civil liberties, such as unlawful

detention or excessive use of force by authorities, could potentially give rise to a
claim for injuria sine damno, as the individual's rights are violated regardless of
any immediate financial consequences.

In each of these scenarios, while there may not be quantifiable financial damages,
the principle of injuria sine damno allows individuals to seek legal recourse for the
infringement of their rights and interests, acknowledging the importance of
protecting non-economic aspects of well-being and dignity within modern legal
frameworks.
Injuria sine damno is a violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or
damage to the plaintiff and whenever any legal right is infringed, the person in
whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action. Every person has an
absolute right to his property, to the immunity of his person, and to his liberty &
infringement of this right is actionable per se. A person against whom the legal
right has been infringed has a cause of action such that even a violation of any
legal right knowingly brings the cause of action. The law even gives the liberty that
if a person merely has a threat of infringement of a legal right even without the
injury being completed, the person whose right has been threatened can bring a suit
under the provisions of Specific Relief Act under Declaration and injunction.

For Example:- If a person is wrongfully detained against his will, he will have a
claim for substantial damages for wrongful imprisonment even if no consequential
loss was suffered pon the detention.

As was cited in the case of Ashby Vs. White (1703) wherein the plaintiff was a
qualified voter at the parliamentary elections which were held at that point of time.
The defendant, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take the plaintiff’s vote.
The plaintiff suffered no damage since the candidate which he wished to vote
already won the elections but still, the defendants were held liable. It was
concluded that damage is not merely pecuniary but injury imports a damage, so
when a man is hindered of his rights he is entitled to remedies.
Injuria sine damno refers to the violation of a legitimate right without causing any
harm, loss, or injury to the aggrieved party. Whenever a legal right is infringed, the
person in whom the right is vested has the right to take legal action.

Each individual possesses absolute rights to their property, personal immunity, and
freedom, and any violation of these rights is significant. When someone’s legal
right is violated, they have a cause of action, even if no actual harm or damage is
caused. The law of torts protects this legal right.

Injuria Sine Damno means an injury or violation of a legal right without any
accompanying actual damage or loss. It signifies a situation where a person’s legal
rights are infringed upon, even though no tangible harm or loss has been suffered.

Injuria Sine Damno recognises that certain legal rights violations can be considered
wrongful acts, irrespective of whether they cause direct harm or not. In such cases,
the aggrieved party may still have a cause of action and seek legal remedies to
protect their rights and seek appropriate redress.

Injuria Sine Damno= Infringement of Legal Rights without Damage

For instance, if someone is unlawfully held against their will, they can seek
significant compensation for wrongful imprisonment, regardless of whether they
experienced any additional negative consequences during the detention.
The law even allows for recourse in situations where there is a mere threat of
infringement of a legal right, even if no harm has been done. The individual whose
right has been threatened can initiate legal proceedings under the provisions of the
Specific Relief Act, seeking a declaration and an injunction to protect their rights.

Landmark Cases on Injuria Sine Damno

Ashby v. White (1703)

In the case of Ashby v. White (1703), the plaintiff, who was a qualified voter, was
wrongfully denied the opportunity to cast his vote in the parliamentary elections.
Although he did not suffer any direct harm since his preferred candidate had
already won, the defendants were still held accountable. This case established the
principle that harm extends beyond mere financial loss and includes the violation
of one’s rights, entitling the individual to legal remedies.

Sain Das v. Ujagar Singh (1940)

The principle of Injuria sine Damno also applies to trespass cases, as seen in the
case of Sain Das v. Ujagar Singh (1940), where nominal damages are typically
awarded. This principle applies when an unjustifiable intrusion on another person’s
property exists. However, it was emphasised that the principle should not be
extended to every case of property attachment without considering the specific
circumstances involved.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

In the case of Bhim Singh v. Province of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Bhim Singh, an
MLA, was unlawfully arrested and detained by the police, preventing him from
attending the legislative assembly sessions and voting. Although his preferred
candidate won the vote, his right to vote was violated.

Mr Singh was arrested and not presented before the court within the required
timeframe, being kept in a secret location. The case revolves around the violation
of personal liberty, as the police, despite obtaining custody of the arrested person,
failed to produce him before the judge within the specified time. This constituted a
gross violation of rights under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution.

The court ruled that the arrest was made with malicious intent, and the plaintiff
was awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000. The arrest of a member of the legislative
assembly on his way to the assembly session resulted in the deprivation of his right
to attend the imminent meeting. In the case of Injuria Sine Damnum, the court has
the jurisdiction to award appropriate financial compensation.

Ravi Yashvant Bhoir v. District Collector

In the Ravi Yashvant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad case, the Supreme Court
provided valuable insights into the concept of legal rights and the requirements for
a valid claim.
A legal right is a claim arising from the law, representing a benefit granted to an
individual. To challenge an act or omission, one must suffer a legal injury.
However, not all harm or loss is considered wrongful under the law if it does not
affect a legal right or a legally protected interest. Such harm without a legal injury
is known as damnum sine injuria.

For a person to have a justiciable claim, they must demonstrate that they have been
deprived of a legal right and have suffered an injury to a legally protected interest.
If there is no legal basis for a claim, the individual cannot be recognised as a party
in a legal proceeding. Mere fanciful or sentimental grievances are insufficient to
establish locus standi to sue. There must be a recognisable legal grievance
supported by valid reasons rather than a claim devoid of legal merit.

Conclusion

Injuria Sine Damno is a legal principle that recognises the violation of a legal right
without the need for actual loss or harm. It signifies that a person can seek legal
remedies and compensation even if no consequential damages have been suffered.
This principle emphasises the importance of protecting and upholding individual
rights, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their legal
entitlements.