Tortured by Torts: A Comparative Study for AILET Aspirants

**Navigating the Complexities of Indian Tort Law** As a law student myself, I still remember the initial shock I experienced when I first delved into the realm of Torts. The seemingly endless list of torts, the labyrinthine web of defenses, and the complex legal frameworks that govern them can be overwhelming, to say the least. But with careful analysis and comparison, the concepts of Indian tort law can be made more manageable, and even interesting.

One of the key differences between Indian and common law systems lies in the classification of torts. In India, torts are broadly categorized into three main heads: Act, Omission, and Negligence. This classification is reflected in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, under the headings of "Of Offences Affecting the Human Body" (sections 299-320), "Of Offences Affecting the Human Body in General" (sections 321-338), and "Of Offences Affecting the Human Body Exclusively" (sections 351-358).

Act Torts

Act torts are further divided into intentional and non-intentional torts. Intentional torts, as seen in Ajmer Singh v. Jaswant Singh (2001 6 SCC 141), involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another person. Non-intentional torts, on the other hand, involve unintentional harm caused by an act or omission. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the IPC, 1860, both provide a framework for understanding the principles of intention and negligence in act torts.

Omission Torts

Omission torts, as illustrated in Camelot Productions Beg Ltd. v. CBS (1980) 1 All ER 335, involve the failure to act in a situation where a legal duty to act exists. The Indian judiciary has consistently emphasized the importance of a positive duty to act in cases of omission torts. For instance, in Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar (1966 2 SCR 115), the Supreme Court held that the failure of a public authority to act in a situation of public duty can give rise to a cause of action in tort.

Negligence Torts

Negligence torts, as outlined in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562), involve the failure to exercise due care and caution in a situation where a duty to care exists. The Indian law of negligence has evolved significantly over the years, with the introduction of the John Walker & Sons (India) Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder (1964 SCR 145) test, which emphasizes the standard of care to be exercised by a reasonable person in a given situation.

As I reflect on my journey through the labyrinth of Indian tort law, I am reminded of the wise words of Lord Denning: "A tort is a wrong to the person.