Abstract

In contrast to nations like the United Kingdom, the United States, and China, India does not recognise civil wrongs as grounds for a lawsuit. In tort proceedings, Indian courts rely on provisions in a number of legislation to determine whether a claim is admissible. When it comes to the State's tortious responsibility, Indian tort is still based on the pre-independence British paradigm. Only under Article 300 of the Indian Constitution may the state be held accountable, and only for sovereign actions. The narrow border separating sovereign and non-sovereign activities has caused numerous judges to express unease when deciding state accountability. Litigation for tort claims is less popular in India than it should be because of the dispersed remedies provided for tortious wrongs under numerous legislation. As a result, tort law, which is one of the most successful means of resolving personal injury claims, is underutilised in India. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was passed in India in 1986, outlines remedies for product liability claims, however, it has several gaps. High-tort cases, such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, are not handled in India. In contrast to other disciplines of law, such as crimes, contracts, property, and trusts, torts have yet to be codified in India. In tort law, Indian judges and lawyers have made a significant contribution. Tort liability in the setting of a welfare state is unfamiliar to the majority of the populace.

Keywords