• Today: November 11, 2025

Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary

01 January, 1970
1601
Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary — Injuria Sine Damnum & Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (Torts) | The Law Easy

Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary

Law of Torts Injuria Sine Damnum India 2024 ≈5–6 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: Tags: Injuria Sine Damnum, Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, Voting Right
Icons of a ballot and scales of justice representing right to vote and remedy


Quick Summary

The case explains the rule of Injuria Sine Damnum: if a legal right is violated, the law gives a remedy even when no money loss is proved. The court relied on the classic maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium—where there is a right, there is a remedy. Stopping a qualified voter from voting is a legal injury in itself.


Issues

  • Can a person claim a remedy without proving actual loss if a legal right is infringed?

Rules

  • Injuria Sine Damnum: Legal injury alone is actionable; damages may be awarded even without measurable loss.
  • Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: Every violation of a right has a remedy.
  • Exemplary damages may be used to deter officials who misuse power and violate fundamental civil rights like voting.
Torts Ubi Jus

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic of denial of vote and court action
Plaintiff was stopped from casting his vote by the defendant (a public officer).
Plaintiff claimed violation of the right to vote, a legal right.
Defendant argued the plaintiff was not qualified to vote as a settled inhabitant.
The dispute highlighted the classic Aylesbury election scenario from English tort principles.

Arguments

Appellant / Plaintiff

  • Right to vote was unlawfully blocked.
  • No need to show money loss; legal injury is enough.
  • Sought damages to mark the wrong and deter abuse.

Respondent / Defendant

  • Claimed the plaintiff was not eligible to vote.
  • Argued there was no actual damage, so no remedy.
  • Disputed the use of exemplary damages.

Judgment

Gavel symbolising court judgment on rights without loss
  • Held: Preventing a qualified voter from voting is a legal wrong by itself.
  • A remedy lies even when no pecuniary loss is shown.
  • Courts may award compensatory and, where fit, exemplary damages to deter public misuse.

Ratio

When a legal right is infringed, the cause of action is complete without proof of loss. The maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium ensures a remedy for the wrong.

Why It Matters

  • Protects civil rights like voting from arbitrary denial.
  • Teaches that rights are actionable even without economic loss.
  • Supports exemplary damages against misuse of public power.

Key Takeaways

Legal Injury

Right breached = action lies, even with zero money loss.

Ubi Jus

Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

Public Officers

Exemplary damages can deter official misconduct.

Voting Right

Blocking a qualified voter is actionable per se.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RIGHT HIT = REMEDY FIT.”

  • Right infringed → claim lies.
  • Hit to legal status, not wallet, still counts.
  • Remedy may be compensatory or exemplary.

3-Step Hook:

  1. Identify the right (e.g., vote).
  2. Check if it was blocked by the defendant.
  3. Seek damages even if no money loss is shown.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a remedy available when a right is violated without actual loss?

Rule

Injuria Sine Damnum; Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium; scope for exemplary damages.

Application

Blocking a qualified voter was a legal injury; loss proof not required.

Conclusion

Plaintiff entitled to damages; court may award exemplary damages to deter future abuse.

Glossary

Injuria Sine Damnum
Legal injury without measurable loss; still actionable.
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
Where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Exemplary Damages
Punitive damages to deter wrongful conduct, often by public officers.

FAQs

No. If your legal right is violated, the court can grant relief even without monetary loss.

Because voting is a core legal right; denial shows legal injury clearly even if no money loss occurs.

In suitable cases to punish and deter officials or defendants who act in bad faith or abuse authority.

Then no right is infringed, so the action fails. The rule works only when the legal right truly exists.

Comment

Nothing for now