DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240

court ruled "the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, providing that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by reasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass; within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."

Susan Leigh Beer Vs India Tourism Development ... on 3 March, 2011 Delhi High Court

This is case for compensation of Rs 20000000 for the negligence of Hotel. Court allow compensation of Rs 18200000 with interest @ 6% from filing the suit and 10% for future till payment.

Forum Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution Vs UOI, AIR 2005 SC 3136

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises… Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance….
Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute….
While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen….
Civil law can be divided under two heads (i) The Law of Torts (ii) The General Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not come before the law courts in large quantity. The reason behind this is that many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of pollution and they are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise pollution.”
Court issue direction for fireworks to reduce noise pollution.

Oleum Gas Leak case, AIR 1987 SC 1086

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, Enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties, Decided by SC on 16.04.2009

Taking a serious note of various instances where there was large scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, suo motu proceedings were initiated by a Bench of this Court on 5.6.2007.
In many such cases, the leaders would really be the main offenders being the abettors of the crime. If they are not caught in the dragnet and allowed to be immune from prosecution proceedings, such direct actions would continue unabated, if not further escalated, and will remain a constant or recurring affair.
Of course, it is normally difficult to prove abetment of the offence with the help of direct evidence. This flaw can be remedied to a great extent by making an additional provision in PDPP Act to the effect that specified categories of leaders of the organization which make the call for direct actions resulting in damage to public property, shall be deemed to be guilty of abetment of the offence.
However, the accused in such case shall not be liable to conviction if he proves that (i) he was in no way connected with the action called by his political party or that (ii) he has taken all reasonable measures to prevent causing damage to public property in the direct action called by his organisation.
We felt that one of the areas to be tapped is evidence through videography in addition to contemporaneous material that may be available through the media.
There is a connection between tort and crime - the purpose of the criminal law is to protect the public interest and punish wrongdoers, the purpose of tort-law is to vindicate the rights of the individual and compensate the victim for loss, injury or damage suffered by him: however - the distinction in purpose between criminal law and the law of tort is not entirely crystal-clear, and it has been developed from case-to-case. The availability of exemplary damages in certain torts (for instance) suggest an overtly punitive function - but one thing is clear: tort and criminal law have always shared a deterrent function in relation to wrongdoing.
The entire history of the development of the tort law shows a continuous tendency, which is naturally not uniform in all common law countries, to recognise as worthy of legal protection, interests which were previously not protected at all or were infrequently protected and it is unlikely that this tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future. There are dicta both ancient and modern that categories of tort are not closed and that novelty of a claim is no defence. But generally, the judicial process leading to recognition of new tort situations is slow.
Where persons, whether jointly or otherwise, are part of a protest which turns violent, results in damage to private or public property, the persons who have caused the damage, or were part of the protest or who have organized will be deemed to be strictly liable for the damage so caused, which may be assessed by the ordinary courts or by any special procedure created to enforce the right.
Damages in the law of torts in India include (a) damages based on the concept of restituto in interregnum to enable total recompense; and (b) exemplary damages"
The basic principles as suggested by Nariman Committee are as follows which we find to be appropriate: (1) The basic principle for measure of damages in torts (i.e. wrongs) in property is that there should be `restituto in interregnum' which conveys the idea of "making whole". (2) Where any injury to property is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation by way of damages the Court should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation. (3) In this branch of the law, the principle of restitution in interregnum has been described as the "dominant" rule of law. Subsidiary rules can only be justified if they give effect to that rule.
Aggravated damages are designed to compensate the plaintiff for his wounded feelings-they must be distinguished from exemplary damages which are punitive in nature and which (under English Law) may be awarded in a limited category of cases.
"Exemplary damages" has been a controversial topic for many years. Such damages are not compensatory but are awarded to punish the defendant and to deter him and others from similar behaviour in the future. The law in England (as restated in Rookes v. Barnard affirmed in Cassell v. Broome) is that such damages are not generally allowed. In England they can only be awarded in three classes of cases (i) where there is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the Government; (ii) where the defendants conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant; and (iii) where such damages are provided by statute.
In the absence of legislation the following guidelines are to be adopted to assess damages:
(I) Wherever a mass destruction to property takes place due to protests or thereof, the High Court may issue suo motu action and set up a machinery to investigate the damage caused and to award compensation related thereto.
(II) Where there is more than one state involved, such action may be taken by the Supreme Court.
(III) In each case, the High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, appoint a sitting or retired High Court judge or a sitting or retired District judge as a Claims Commissioner to estimate the damages and investigate liability.
(IV) An Assessor may be appointed to assist the Claims Commissioner.
(V) The Claims Commissioner and the Assessor may seek instructions from the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be, to summon the existing video or other recordings from private and public sources to pinpoint the damage and establish nexus with the perpetrators of the damage.
(VI) The principles of absolute liability shall apply once the nexus with the event that precipitated the damage is established.
(VII) The liability will be borne by the actual perpetrators of the crime as well as organisers of the event giving rise to the liability - to be shared, as finally determined by the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be.
(VIII) Exemplary damages may be awarded to an extent not greater than twice the amount of the damages liable to be paid.
(IX) Damages shall be assessed for: (a) damages to public property; (b) damages to private property; (c) damages causing injury or death to a person or persons; (d) Cost of the actions by the authorities and police to take preventive and other actions
(X) The Claims Commissioner will make a report to the High Court or Supreme Court which will determine the liability after hearing the parties.

The situation in which a positive mandamus to do a particular act in a particular way, may be broadly classified in the following manner. First are the broad mandamus cases where this Court has held that the court may issue a positive mandamus to enforce the law. Thus in Vineet Narain's case (supra) detailed orders were passed for the investigation of the Hawala transaction cases. It is laid down that positive directions can be issued where there is a power coupled with a duty. The situations under which this can happen are numerous.
How do we check the abuse of police power? Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon.
if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go Scot free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer. The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, a provision in the ICCPR was referred to support the view taken that 'an enforceable right to compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed right', as a public law remedy under Article 32, distinct from the private law remedy in torts. There is no reason why these international conventions and norms cannot, therefore, be used for construing the fundamental rights expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of India which embody the basic concept of gender equality in all spheres of human activity.
As pointed out in Vishaka it is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field is coterminous with that of the legislature, and where there is inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.
Mr. F.S. Nariman Committee has suggested certain modalities which are essentially as follows: a) The Trusteeship Principle - Professional journalists operate as trustees of public and their mission should be to seek the truth and to report it with integrity and independence. b) The Self Regulation Principles - A model of self-regulation should be based upon the principles of impartiality and objectivity in reporting; ensuring neutrality; responsible reporting of sensitive issues, especially crime, reporting women violence, agitations and children and and protests; sensitivity in matters relating to national security; respect for privacy. c) Content Regulations - In principle, content regulation except under very exceptional circumstances, is not to be encouraged beyond vetting of cinema and advertising through the existing statues. It should be incumbent on the media to classify its work through warning systems as in cinema so that children and those who are challenged adhere to time, place and manner restraints. The media must also evolve codes and complaint systems. But prior content control (while accepting the importance of codes for self restraint) goes to the root of censorship and is unsuited to the role of media in democracy. d) Complaints Principle - There should be an effective mechanism to address complaints in a fair and just manner. e) Balance Principle - A balance has to be maintained which is censorial on the basis of the principles of proportionality and least invasiveness, but which effectively ensures democratic governance and self restraint from news publications that the other point of view is properly accepted and accommodated.
Regulation of the media is not an end in itself; and allocative regulation is necessary because the 'air waves' are public property and cannot technically be free for all but have to be distributed in a fair manner.

Tort- duty to care Burton v. West Suffolk County Council, (1960)2 WLR 745, a highway authority carried out certain drainage work on a road to improve its conditions since it was inadequate to prevent flooding when the road was subjected to heavy rain. It was the practice of the roadman to put red flags by day and put off red lights by night whenever there was flooding which could be dangerous to vehicles. In December 1954, after heavy rain and flooding, after the water had subsided, a patch of ice formed on that part of the road which tended to keep damp because of inadequate drainage. The red flags and red lights were put off by the roadman when the water had subsided. The plaintiff was driving his car along the road when it ran on the patch of ice causing it to skid and crash into a tree. The plaintiff was injured and the car was damaged. In an action for damages though the trial Court granted the decree, on appeal, it was held that failure to provide adequate drainage by not doing sufficient work was an act of non-feasance for which the highway authority was not liable, but if the work was done negligently performed and created a new danger, the Corporation was liable. It was held that there was no duty on the defendant to warn the plaintiff of the danger of ice being on the road, and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for damages failed.

Tort- duty to care Smith & Ors. v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd., (1987) AC 241, The defendants purchased a cinema building with the intention of demolishing it and replacing by a super market. The cinema after doing some work remained omitted and unattended. Security of the building was from time to time overcome by children and young persons and vandalish took place in and around it including an attempt to set fire to some old films in an adjoining closet and an attempt to light a fire in the cinema itself. On July 5, 1976, a fire was deliberately started in the cinema by children or teenagers, as a result of which the cinema burned down and an adjacent cafe and billiard saloon and a nearby church belonging to the users were seriously damaged. An action was brought against the defendants for damages claiming that the damages to the property was caused due to defendants' negligence in not driving off the children causing the damage. The House rejecting the claim, speaking through Lord Brandon of Oakbrook had held that there should be "careless breach of duty"

Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, (1989)1 AC 191, the plaintiff's 20 year old daughter was attacked at night in a city street of the police area of which the defendant was chief constable and died from her injuries. Her attacker who was convicted of her murder was alleged to have committed series of offences of murder and attempted murder against young women in the area. Action was laid by the appellant-mother claiming damages for the negligence in apprehending the accused and for the faulty investigation. The trial Court quashed the action on the ground of lack of cause of action and in appeal it was confirmed. Lord Keith of Kinkel speaking for the House, had held that "where an individual member of the police force in the course of carrying out their functions of controlling and keeping down the incidence of crime owed a duty of care to individual members of the public who may suffer injury of person or property through the activities of criminals such as to result in liability for damages on the ground of negligence to anyone who suffers such injury by reason of the breach of that duty. Having posed that question, the House held that the general sense of public duty which motivates police forces in unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability so far as concerns their function in the investigation and suppression of crime. From time to time they make mistakes in the exercise of that function, but it is not to be doubted that they apply their best endeavors to the performance of it. In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. The possibility of this happening in relation to the investigative operations of the police cannot be excluded. Further it would be reasonable to expect that if potential liability were to be imposed it would be not uncommon for actions to be raised against police forces on the ground that they had failed to catch some criminal as soon as they might have done, with the result that he went on to commit further crimes. While some such actions might involve allegations of a simple and straightforward type of failure - for example that a police officer negligently tripped and fell while pursuing a burglar - others would be likely to enter deeply into the general nature of a police investigation, as indeed the present action would seek to do."

Tort Oversees Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Docks and Engineering Co. Ltd., (1961) AC 388. Viscount Simonds, "It is, no doubt, proper when considering tortious liability for negligence to analyse its elements and to say that the plaintiff must prove a duty owed to him by the defendant, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and consequent damage. But there could be no liability until the damage has been done. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded for tort.

Tort- joint liability Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1998 (SC) 640 Fact- driver was angry with some of the passengers who found fault with him for delay and he told them that he would abandon the bus and leave the passengers in a forest. By noon, the bus reached Cochin and proceeded to Kalady via Angamali. The bus was to cross an unmanned level crossing at Akaparamba at about 3 P.M. The said railway crossing had no gates or stiles. It is now found on evidence that the caution board at the entrance of the level crossing was moth-eaten and the writings thereon could not be deciphered by anyone even if one was inclined to read. The train was visible to the driver and passengers at a distance of 1 km. The driver drove the vehicle and was crossing the railway line when the vehicle stopped on the track and did not move. The passengers cried and shouted in panic but the bus remained there and was pushed upto a distance of 500 metres by the locomotive. In that process forty passengers and the driver died while some other passengers were injured. We have accepted that the driver of the said motor-vehicle was negligent. The question is whether the driver's negligence in any manner vicariously attaches to the passengers of the motor-vehicle of which he was the driver ? There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a 'right of control' of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver. (Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed., 1984 P. 521-522). It is therefore clear that even if the driver of the passenger vehicle was negligent, the Railways, if its negligence was otherwise proved - could not plead contributory negligence on the part of the passengers of the vehicle. What is clear is that qua the passengers of the bus who were innocent, - the driver and owner of the bus and, if proved, the railways - can all be joint tort-feasors. because the Railways are involved in what is recognised as dangerous or perilous operations, they are at common law, to take reasonable and necessary care, on the 'neighbourhood' principle - even if the provisions in Section 13(c) and (d) of the Railways Act, 1890 are not attracted for want of requisition by the Central Government. we hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tort-feasors, and if arising out of use of the motor vehicle.

Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997(9) SCC 552, issue was regarding the omission on the part of the local authority to remove a tree from a public road. The tree later fell on the plaintiff's husband who was passing by the road resulting in his death. The High Court had decreed compensation but this court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim holding that no breach of statutory duty was involved.The decree of liability depends on degree of mental element. The elements of tort of negligence consist in - (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the law exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Negligence would in such acts and omissions involve an unreasonable risk to harm to others. The breach of duty causes damage and how much is the damage should be comprehended by the defendant. Remoteness is relevant and compensation on proof thereof requires consideration. The element of carelessness in the breach of the duty and those duties towards the plaintiff are important components in the tort of negligence. Negligence would mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act connoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the plaintiff owes. Duty of care is, therefore, crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort of negligence. The degree of carelessness in breach of duty would, therefore, vary from case to case and it should not unduly be extended or confined or limited or circumscribed to all situations.What constitutes carelessness is the conduct and not the result of inadvertence. Thus negligence in this sense is a ground for liability in tort. There is a distinction between failure to exercise a statutory power giving causation for damage by positive act of negligence by another and some accidental occurrence or by omission. The general rule is that the public authorities are liable for positive action (misfeasance) but not for omission (non-feasance).

Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932Ac 562 a manufacturer was held liable to the ultimate consumer at common law on the principle of duty to care. Lord Atkin said "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. He asked : "Who, then, in law is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be, persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question". The test of breach of common law duty is again the test of a reasonable or prudent person in the particular fact situation, of course the amount of care, skill, diligence or the like, varying according to the circumstances of the particular case. The standard of foresight is again that of a reasonable person.