NEWSPAPER DISCOVERY
SUBJECT : LAW OF TORTS
SUBMITTED TO : PROF ARUNA B. VENKAT
SUBMITTED BY:
SAAHIL MADAN
2028-5LLB-062
[Link] (Hons.)
1ST SEMESTER
CONTENTS
AIM .................................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 3
CASE 1: MADHYA PRADESH TRIBAL INCIDENT ..................................................................... 5
FACTS ................................................................................................................................................... 5
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ...................................................... 5
ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 6
CASE 2: CAR BURNINGS OF MANIPUR ................................................................................... 7
FACTS ............................................................................................................................................... 7
TORT OF CONVERSION................................................................................................................... 7
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 7
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 9
AIM
The aim of this project is to examine in a novel manner, news of the past. The purpose would
be to analyze if the case in question could be characterized as a tort and if it did, how much
could the tort impact the legal future of this country.
INTRODUCTION
It would be wise to start thinking of torts first, from the view point of philosophical thought.
As such, tort arose from the distinction great thinkers made between the criminal, in which the
state was the party wronged and the civil, where private persons held stakes. In his book,
Nicomachean Ethics Book V,1 Aristotle introduces the concept of “Corrective Justice” which
entails that when a person is wronged by another, he is bound to restore the victim to his
original position. He uses the example of two lines which are of unequal lengths, and says that
the just thing would be to remove the greater segment from the lengthened line and add it to
the shorter line to make them of equal length. The primary identity of the law of torts lies in its
differences with criminal and contract law. As stated earlier, the parties on both sides of a tort
claim act as private entities as opposed to a penal action where the wrong is seen as a crime
against the society as a whole and thus the state acts as the claimant. The main difference
between a contract and a tort is that a contract clearly defines the rights and obligations of the
parties entering a contract and the damages arising out of said violations are also usually
defined or are liquidated. But in torts, the wrong is defined upon standards of reasonable
behavior and any deviation from these standards are met with undefined or unliquidated
damages.
Let us also at this stage look at Sir John Salmond’s definition of tort:
“a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and
which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely
equitable obligation.”2
Salmond has thus defined tort as sum of its differences from criminal and other forms of civil
1
V, ARISTOTLE, The Nicomachean Ethics,.2-5.
2
R.V.F Heuston & R.A Buckley, SALMOND AND HUESTON, LAW OF TORTS 14,15 (20th ed. 1992).
laws. But generally, the elements of a tort would constitute:
a. Duty of Care
b. Breach of the duty of care
c. Damage to the victim
d. Damages
The term Duty of Care is usually used to denote an individual’s duty to respect a corresponding
legal right of another. For example, a person while driving on a crowded street, has a duty to
respect the corresponding right of another, say the right to safely walk on the pavement. If he
or she fails to respect this right by say driving negligently or in an inebriated state, they have
breached this duty of care. The breach itself is any wrongful act that leads to violation of
one’s legal obligation and/or another’s legal right. If the victim on the pavement is injured due
to the negligent driving, damage has been done. Damage is the harm or loss suffered or
presumed to have been suffered due to a wrongful act. The compensation that a court provides
to the person who has suffered damage is referred to as Damages.
Let us now look at our first case for this project.
CASE 1: MADHYA PRADESH TRIBAL INCIDENT
FACTS
On 4th July 2023, videos surfaced on the internet of a man urinating on another in Madhya
Pradesh (Hence referred to as MP). The individual named Pravesh Shukla allegedly urinated
on a mentally challenged tribal man in the Kubri village, 380 km from Bhopal. Chief Minister
Shivraj Singh Chouhan was also seen washing the victim’s feet3 heard condemning this act and
requesting the harshest of sanctions being placed on this individual who was absconding at that
period. The MP police wasting no time, formed multiple teams to nab this person and charged
him under the National Security Act, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act, §294
(Obscene act in a public place) and §504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of
peace) of the Indian Penal Code.4But what is of interest to us is the issue of whether the act of
pravesh shukla if proven true could be a tort?
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The recognition of infliction of emotional distress in India has a history of its own. In late
1890’s a bench in England had allowed a woman to collect compensation from a man who as
a prank had told her that her husband had met with an accident and as a result, she suffered
great physical and mental distress.5 This was the first recognition of the tort that came to be
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). The tort essentially regards any act with
the requisites of:
(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;
3
Shruti Tomar, MP urination case: CM Chouhan apologizes to victim, washes his feet, HT (July 6, 2023),
<[Link]
[Link]>.
4
Anurag Dwary, Video of Drunk Man Peeing On Tribal In Madhya Pradesh Sparks Outrage, NDTV (July 4,
2023), <[Link]
pradesh-4177876>.
5
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB).
(2) defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing
emotional distress;
(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and
(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous
conduct 6 to be inflicting emotional distress and hence is deserving of compensation. This tort
has primarily developed in American and British courts, but India is not far behind in
recognizing the infliction of emotional distress as a possible cause of action as distinct from
physical assault or physical injury on the body of the victim. The High Court of Kerela in P.P.
Rajesh v. Deepti P.R.,7 it stated that the infliction of emotional distress in itself is suitable for
a tortious claim. It also stated, “In cases where there is proof of outrageous tortious conduct,
like deliberate and wanton physical assault, high handed mental torture or intentional
infliction of emotional distress, by one spouse against the other, the Court is not powerless to
grant even exemplary damages”,8 thus recognizing the element of emotional distress in the
spirit of IIED.
ANALYSIS
The elements of the Madhya Pradesh case fit the criterions as such:
1. The act of urinating on another was outrageous and deviated from societal standards of
basic decency.
2. It was intentionally aimed at humiliation of the victim for his social background and
disregarded the probability of emotional distress
3. The victim in the case had to suffer severe humiliation which is a recognized element
of emotional distress.9
4. The humiliation and distress caused in this case was directly tied to the act of the
perpetrator urinating on him.
Hence, all elements of this tort were satisfied in the present case and hence it can be claimed
that it could be a tort of IIED.
6
Cervantez v. J.C. Penny Co (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579.
7
. 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16340.
8
Ibid.
9
Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 25, 1977 SCC OnLine US SC 39.
CASE 2: CAR BURNINGS OF MANIPUR
FACTS
On 3rd May 2023, violence broke out in the North-Eastern state of Manipur between the Meitei
and Kuki communities after a tribal march was organized against the latter’s demand for a
Scheduled Tribes status.10As such more than 100 people have lost their lives and over 3000
have been injured. Additionally, §144 of the CrPC was issued in the state and internet services
were indefinitely suspended. On 8th July, news emerged that a mob had burnt down two
vehicles on the suspicion that they were supplying much needed relief to households of a
particular community.11Again, the question arises of whether the act committeed by the mob
can be classified as a tort?
TORT OF CONVERSION
The tort of conversion emerged in jurisprudence in the late 15th century, developing almost
contemporarily with modern property rights. This is also the reason why the base for this tort
is unlawful interference with the property rights of another, starting with the earliest perception
from the concept of “detinue” or wrongful possession of goods or property. The action of
conversion stands on two pillars:
1. those of excluding the rightful owner from his goods, and
2. the second of exercising possession and disposal of those goods unlawfully.12
ANALYSIS
In this particular case, the cause of action arises as:
10
Abhinay Lakshman, Manipur violence | After Kuki Inpi hardens stance, signs of fissures among groups
demanding separation, THE HINDU (July 17, 2023), [Link]
states/manipur-after-kuki-inpi-hardens-stance-signs-of-fissures-among-groups-demanding-
separation/[Link].
11
Manipur violence: Mob sets two vehicles on fire, intermittent firing reported, MINT (July 8, 2023),
[Link]
[Link].
12
7 P.B.H. Birks, "Personal Property: Proprietary Rights and Remedies" (2000) pp.1,3
1. The mob deprived the rightful owner that was the vehicle owner of his rights to use the
property as per his free will,
2. By destroying the chattel in a manner making it unsuitable for further usage.
Two issues may arise out of this interpretation of this tort, namely,
a. How is the given situation a tort, when the chattel in this case was burnt and there was
no intention to possess the chattel by the mob?
b. Is tort of conversion a concept separate from detinue, and if so, does it affect the
conclusion in this project?
To answer the first question, we look at the case of Pillot v. Wilkinson 13 where the defendant
being unsure if he was allowed to return goods of the claimant held in his warehouse by an
officer was sued for torts. The suit succeeded even though the defendant did not intend to
possess the goods. Thus, in the given situation, even though the mob had no intention to keep
possession of the chattel, it still could classify as a tort.
The distinction between detinue and conversion is one that has been hotly debated throughout
the legal fraternity or in other words, is conversion a mere denial of property rights of the
person or does it require an active misappropriation of the chattel in order to be proven as a
tort. Initial judicial decisions such as the one in the 1596 case of Eason v. Newman,14 the court
decreed that cause of action exists from the mere refusal of property right of the claimant and
nothing more is required to be proven, thus limiting conversion to a mere tort in form. But
subsequently, judges like Popham C.J disagreed with decision and the law began to evolve.
Eventually, a consensus was reached to the respect that the mere denial may be a proof of
conversion but the cause of action starts at the misappropriation of the chattel which lies at the
centre of conversion.15
Thus, in this case, the mere denial of the property right to the vehicle did not trigger a cause of
action for conversion but the destruction of the vehicle cemented the liability of the mob
members.
13
Pillot v. Wilkinson, 54 (1863) 2 H & C 72
14
Eason v. Newman (M.1596) [Link]. 495, Moo. 460
15
Simon Douglas, The Nature of Conversion, The Cambridge Law Journal, (Mar., 2009), Vol. 68, No. 1 (Mar.,
2009), pp. 198-223
CONCLUSION
To conclude, this project has attempted to showcase the fact that tort law in this country is a
result of integration and confluence of global concepts, themes, and ideas. Ideas developed out
of dissent in Europe have created transformative laws in India and Indian courts have in turn
developed on these themes to suit them to Indian society. The Indian jurisprudence has thus
proven to be a collaborative project taking into consideration multiple sources and
circumstances to mould the tort law into its modern form.
The first case spoke about the tort of IIED developed relatively recently in English
jurisprudence and applied it to the problem of a caste motivated act, trying to prove the
capability of Indian law to adapt and expand to include modern social realities.
The second case spoke about a relatively old tort that has been debated over centuries and
evolved over strata of legal timelines yet still holds relevance to a present-day problem.
It may thus not be known what the law is, but it is surely a summation of our aspirations, our
constrains and our past.
