Bhim Singh v.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)
Principle used: Injuria sine damnum and false imprisonment
Facts
The petitioner, in this case, Shri Bhim Singh was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly in the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. An FIR was registered against him under Section 153-A of the Ranbir Penal
Code, 1989 at the Police Station Pacca Danga. The ground of the FIR was an inflammatory speech
delivered at a public meeting. He was arrested and detained by the police. Also, he was deliberately
prevented from attending the session of the Assembly. As a result of a habeas corpus writ filed by his
wife, Bhim Singh was released on bail. Subsequently, there was a voting session in the Assembly that he
was not allowed to attend and hence, he could not vote. Even though the person whom he wanted to
vote for won, he claimed that his right to vote was infringed.
Issues involved in the case
Whether the arrest and detention of Bhim Singh was illegal and amounted to false imprisonment?
Whether the detention amounts to an infringement of the petitioner’s constitutional rights?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemplary compensation?
Judgement of the Court
The Supreme Court of India concluded that the petitioner was falsely imprisoned. In fact, the remand
orders were obtained from the Executive Magistrate of First Class and the Sub-Judge without producing
the petitioner before them. The police officers acted deliberately and had mala fide intentions.
It was held that the false imprisonment and non-production of the petitioner before the magistrate
were tantamount to infringement of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. He was completely deprived
of personal liberty, he had the knowledge of the restraint, there was the presence of malicious intent on
part of the police officers and it was an unlawful act. All the ingredients of false imprisonment were
satisfied in the present case. Also, not producing him in front of the magistrate violated Section 56 and
Section 76 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The main principle applied here was that of ‘injuria sine damnum’, i.e. injury without damage. In this
case, Bhim Singh was prevented from attending the Assembly session and casting his vote. Even though
there was no damage caused as the candidate in whose favour he wanted to vote had won, there was
an infringement of his legal right. Thus, without any actual harm suffered by the petitioner, he could
bring an action just because his constitutional right had been violated.
The Court also recognised that when a person is maliciously arrested and imprisoned, it is a complete
invasion of his constitutional and legal rights. Restraining his personal liberty violated Articles 20 and 21
of the Indian Constitution. Justice is not served by merely setting that person free. Thus, it is completely
justified to award monetary compensation in such cases. As a result, the State of Jammu and Kashmir
was directed by the honourable Supreme Court to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner Bhim Singh
as monetary compensation from the date of the judgement within two months.
Ashby v. White (1703)
Principle used: Injuria sine damnum
Facts of the case
This is an eighteenth-century voting rights case, also known as the Aylesbury election case. In this case,
the plaintiff Mr. Ashby was denied to vote by the returning officer Mr. White, in the parliamentary
elections. He unlawfully deprived him of his right to vote on the ground that he was not a permanent
resident. Even though the candidate in whose favour he wanted to cast his vote won, Mr. Ashby claimed
that his legal right to vote was infringed. This case sparked a national controversy and even invited a
parliamentary debate. The defendant claimed that there was no actual loss incurred by Mr. Ashby by
not voting. The plaintiff sought compensation for the violation of his legal right.
Issue involved in the case
Whether the plaintiff can seek compensation for the violation of his legal right without any actual
damage caused?
Judgement of the Court
The Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. It applied the principle of ‘injuria sine damnum’,
which translates to ‘injury without damage’. It implies that the law recognises only legal injuries and not
mere damages. Whenever an action causes a legal injury, i.e. someone’s legal right is violated, the victim
deserves compensation, even when there is no actual damage caused. Thus, in the present case, even
when the candidate to whom the plaintiff wanted to cast his vote had won, his legal right to vote was
violated when he was wrongfully denied from casting his vote. Therefore, he deserves compensation.
Chief Justice Holt said, “Any injury imports harm even if it does not cost the party one farthing. In the
case of damage, not only pecuniary but also injury, the damage is imported if a person is hampered in
his or her rights.”
