Title: Myth-busting Torts: Debunking the Indian Law of Torts Misconceptions

Why Torts Matter Even If You’re Not a Civil Lawyer

When I first saw the word “tort” on the DU LLB syllabus, I imagined a dusty chapter of tortious negligence, just waiting to be memorised. Turns out, it’s more like a secret handshake among legal minds: you need to know the nuances, the precedents, and the subtle differences between Indian and common‑law torts. Let’s unravel the myths that keep students tangled.

Myth 1: Indian Tort Law is Just a Copy of English Law

While India inherited many tort principles from the common law, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) shape the modern tort landscape. For instance, the concept of “negligence” is rooted in the English case Donoghue v. Stevenson, but Indian courts have refined it through cases like Bhagwan Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2004) and State of Maharashtra vs. M. V. Radhakrishna (1998). The key difference? Indian courts emphasize public policy and social welfare, often expanding the duty of care beyond the “reasonable person” test used in England.

Myth 2: Only Personal Injury Cases Fall Under Torts

Think torts are limited to bodily harm? Think again. The Indian Supreme Court, in Supreme Court of India vs. M. S.