RELEVANCY OF MOTIVE IN LAW OF TORTS

My name is Gaurav Lall pursuing BBA LL.B. (Hons.) at United World School of Law. You
can follow me on my Linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/in/gaurav-lall-b284901ab/.
The article is identifying the relevancy of motive in law of torts. Basically, I have described
here about the motive and the intention of an individual. Motive identifies the reason behind a
wrongful act and the intention is an act deprived through motive and many exceptions to the
rule are also justified in the article with proper case laws.

1
 RELEVANCY OF MOTIVE IN LAW OF TORTS

INTRODUCTION
An act, otherwise lawful cannot be made actionable by an allegation until it is done with an
evil motive. An evil motive in itself does not amount to injury or legal wrong. When a person
has a right to do something then his motive is irrelevant. Whereas, before any cause of action
a good motive is not a justification perhaps the ill intention does not become wrongful or
legal as because the motive might be good. However, it depends on the cause of action. Many
of the jurists, defined motive as:

Sir J.F Stephen “Motive is the feeling which prompts the operation of the will, the ulterior
object of the person willing.” Salmond defines the word ‘motive’ as “the reason behind the
act or conduct or an act to be achieved in doing an act.” He also describes motive as “the
ulterior intent”. It may be good or bad.

In law of torts, the motive acts as the essential ingredient in supporting the reason for crime
and to ease the proof of the accused in the Court of law. The word motive signifies an
individual’s state of mind or a reason behind an individual’s action. Motive is generally
irrelevant in tort law, but it leads to intention formation, which is the ultimate cause. Every
lawful act does not become wrongful because of an improper, evil motive or malice.

In 1895, a famous case approached before the court which was held by Lord Halsbury and
Lord Watson. With, Bradford Corporation v Pickles the claimant supplied water to
Bradford from sources that ran through underground channels beneath the defendant’s land.
The claimant alleged that, in an attempt to force it to buy his land, the defendant drained
water from his land, causing the claimant’s reservoir empty. The claimant sought an
injunction to prevent the defendant from drawing water from his land but this was denied.
The defendant’s act of drawing water from his land was held to be irrelevant, even it was
though a wrongful intention. The defendant was legitimately exercising property rights in
extracting water from his land. The claimant only had rights to the water once it reached his
land and the injunction was denied.

RELEVANCY LAID DOWN UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that motive is the moving power,
which moves one to do a particular act. Motive, which creates an intention in an individual to

2
harm others which might be an emotion or state of mind. It by itself is not a crime, however
wicked it will be. The evidence of the motive of the crimes becomes important once the
crime is committed. Therefore, evidence of the existence of a motive for the crime charged is
admissible. In criminal law the importance of motive is a relevant factor whether based on the
testimony of eye-witness or circumstantial evidence but motive alone is not sufficient to
prove a person guilty of the crime. For proving a crime, inadequacy of motive does not affect
the convincing evidence but it is important because the evidence may be doubtful. In the case
of Udaipal Singh V. State of U.P., 1972 the evidence of motive was relevant under Section
9 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Kundula Bala v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993, the
Supreme Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes a great
importance as its Evidence is an enlightening factor in a process of speculative reasoning.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

To prove the evidence there may be an essential element or relevant motive in analysing the
liability of the crime. However, various exceptions are there to prove the relevancy of the
motive in torts for determining the liability.
 Defamation which means the action to damage the dignity or reputation, character or
goodwill of an individual. The defamatory statement may be in a written form which
refers to libel and the statements expressed in oral forms, refers to slander.
Defamation can be both civil and criminal, which depends on the nature of the crime.
A case of defamation filed under Civil Law will be dealt under the law of torts and
is bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable offence under criminal law. Some
defences are available under defamation likewise, truth, fair comment, absolute or
qualified privilege and defenses of good faith or fair comment may protect the
individual from claims.
 Intentional tort are civil wrong caused more or less deliberately by the tortfeasor,
and the presence of a mental element is a necessity. Intentional law includes the
following causes of action (i) Battery which is defined under Section 350 of the IPC
refers to the intentional application of force by one person to another person without
the individual’s consent or lawful justification; (ii) Assault, which is defined under
Section 351 of the IPC refers that whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation
intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any
person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to

3
 use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault; (iii) False
imprisonment refers that when a person is restrained by the threat of force for leaving
his own will or property without the justification or consent.
 Unintentional tort refers to a tort when an individual or an entity unintentionally or
inadvertently leads to injury or damage of the property of the other. Basically, in this
nature of a tort, the wrongdoer doesn’t intend to cause harm, but the harm may result
due to negligence without any kind of motive. Negligence refers to the failure to meet
the ordinary or standard behaviour due to the omission of “duty of care.” It acts as a
basis of tort and a significant factor in most of the personal injury. Recklessness, is
also an unintentional tort that creates a higher degree than negligence.
CONCLUSION
Hence, the motive is the “ulterior intent” and the individual’s intention acts as an
“immediate purpose” which derives from the motive itself. In the law of torts, the
conclusion comes out that the existence of mental element or motive may not be essential
to prove or fix the liability upon the tortfeasor. But there might be situations where it has
to be seen how essential mental element is in determining tortious liability. The formation
of an individual to do an act leads through the motive which stands the “ultimate cause.”
The Indian Evidence Act supports the relevance of motive in a court of law. Many
exceptions are also there to prove the motive of an individual who is trying to harm the
other or the third person. Additionally, a wrongdoer may not escape the liability under the
law of tort merely because the individual has no intention to cause harm. At last, the
presence or absence of a mental element cannot prevent a wrongdoer from tortious
liability but it only aggravates the liability.