Law of Torts, Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure in Outline
This topic covers three connected but distinct bodies of procedure: tort law (civil wrongs and the compensation they trigger), the Code of Civil Procedure (how a civil suit actually moves through court), and criminal procedure (how a criminal case is investigated and tried) — all at outline depth, since Paper 1 tests recognition of the core concepts and named cases rather than section-by-section procedural mastery.
The most important framing fact for 2026 is that India's criminal-procedure code changed structurally on 1 July 2024, and this chapter is written to the current law, not the superseded one.
1. Law of torts — the core concepts
A tort is a civil wrong, independent of contract, for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Four concepts recur across almost every tort question.
Negligence requires proving four elements: a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, a breach of that duty (falling below the standard of a reasonable person), damage caused to the claimant, and causation connecting the breach to the damage.
Defamation is the publication of a statement that injures a person's reputation. India does not follow the strict English libel/slander split as rigidly — libel (written or otherwise permanent form) is actionable both civilly and, under Indian criminal law, as a criminal offence as well, a dual civil-and-criminal character worth stating explicitly.
Nuisance is unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land — commonly tested through examples like noise, smell or vibration from a neighbouring property.
Vicarious liability makes an employer liable for torts committed by an employee acting in the course of employment — the doctrine of respondeat superior ("let the superior answer").
2. Two landmark cases on liability without fault
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) established strict liability: a person who brings and keeps something dangerous on their land, which is likely to cause damage if it escapes, is liable for the damage caused by its escape — regardless of fault — subject to defences of act of God, the claimant's own default, statutory authority, or the claimant's consent.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), arising from the Oleum gas leak in Delhi, went a step further: the Supreme Court evolved the Indian doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous industries, explicitly rejecting the defences available under Rylands v. Fletcher.
Under absolute liability, the enterprise is liable for harm resulting from the hazardous activity without any exception, even if the activity was being carried on with all reasonable care, and even where the use of the land was itself "natural" rather than the "non-natural use" Rylands v. Fletcher required — a deliberately stricter Indian standard, developed specifically because the older English rule's defences were seen as inadequate for modern hazardous industry.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — how a civil suit moves
A civil suit follows a fixed procedural sequence under the CPC. It begins with a plaint (Order VII) filed by the plaintiff, followed by summons to the defendant, who must file a written statement (Order VIII) — ordinarily within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days under the 2002 amendment. The court then frames issues (Order XIV) identifying the actual points in dispute, followed by trial and evidence, and finally judgment and decree.
Three distinct post-judgment remedies are frequently confused and worth distinguishing precisely. An appeal challenges the decision in a higher court — a first appeal (Section 96) can raise both questions of fact and law, while a second appeal (Section 100) can raise only a "substantial question of law."
A review (Section 114, Order XLVII) is heard by the same court that passed the order, available only for an error apparent on the face of the record or on discovery of new, previously unavailable evidence. A revision (Section 115) is the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, available only for jurisdictional errors and only where no appeal lies against the order.
4. Criminal procedure — BNSS has replaced the CrPC
On 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — this is settled, current law, not a pending change. BNSS has 531 sections across 39 chapters (against the CrPC's 484 sections and 37 chapters), and several of its section numbers differ from the CrPC provisions candidates may see referenced in older material.
| Concept | BNSS section | Old CrPC section |
|---|---|---|
| First Information Report (FIR) | Section 173 | Section 154 |
| Arrest | Section 35 | Section 41 |
| Anticipatory bail | Section 482 | Section 438 |
BNSS also introduced a genuinely new provision with no direct CrPC parallel: Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry (within a 14-day window) before registering an FIR for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 to 7 years, giving police a formal screening step for this specific band of offences that did not exist under the CrPC. Section 35's arrest provision also tightens the justification required for a routine arrest in offences punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment.
The basic classification of offences as cognizable (police may arrest without a warrant and investigate without a magistrate's prior authorisation) or non-cognizable (police cannot, without the magistrate's order) is unchanged in substance under BNSS — only the numbering and some procedural detail have moved.
A transitional rule matters for any question that specifies a date: cases and FIRs registered before 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by the old CrPC, while offences and proceedings from 1 July 2024 onward are governed by BNSS. A candidate should therefore never assume a blanket "CrPC no longer applies to anything" — it still governs the tail of pre-2024 matters working through the system.
Worked Examples
Example 1. A patient suffers harm because a doctor failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent doctor, and this failure directly caused the harm. Identify the four elements of negligence present in this scenario.
Duty of care (the doctor-patient relationship creates a duty), breach (falling below the standard of a reasonably competent doctor), damage (the harm suffered), and causation (the breach directly caused the harm) — all four elements of negligence are present.
Example 2. A factory stores a large quantity of a hazardous chemical, and despite all reasonable safety precautions being taken, the chemical escapes and causes injury to nearby residents. Which liability doctrine applies, and can the factory rely on the defence that it took all reasonable care?
The doctrine of absolute liability, from M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, applies — since it explicitly rejects the Rylands v. Fletcher defences (including the argument that reasonable care was taken), the factory cannot escape liability on that ground.
Example 3. A landowner brings a dangerous substance onto land for a non-natural use, and it escapes and damages a neighbour's property, but the escape was caused entirely by an extraordinary, unforeseeable natural event. Which doctrine applies, and does the landowner have a defence here?
Rylands v. Fletcher's strict liability doctrine applies (since this scenario involves ordinary, non-hazardous-industry land use rather than an inherently hazardous enterprise), and "act of God" is one of its recognised defences — so the landowner may escape liability if the escape was genuinely due to an extraordinary natural event beyond human foresight and control.
Example 4. A losing party in a civil suit wants to challenge the trial court's decision on a pure question of law, in a case where a first appeal has already been decided by the first appellate court. What is the correct remedy, and what must the challenge establish?
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC — it can be filed only on a "substantial question of law," not on questions of fact, which is a narrower ground than the first appeal's ability to raise both fact and law.
Example 5. A party wants the very same court that passed an order to reconsider it, based on newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing. Which remedy is this, and which court hears it?
A review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC — it is heard by the same court that passed the original order, not a higher court, and is available (among other grounds) on discovery of new, previously unavailable evidence.
Example 6. A cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 5 years is reported to the police on 15 August 2025. Which code governs the FIR and investigation, and does the new preliminary-inquiry provision apply to this offence band?
BNSS governs, since the offence was reported after 1 July 2024. Because the offence is punishable with imprisonment between 3 and 7 years, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) within 14 days before deciding whether to register an FIR — a screening step that did not exist under the old CrPC.
Example 7. A candidate is asked to state the CrPC section number for anticipatory bail. Explain why this question, if it specifies "current law," should be answered with a BNSS reference instead.
The CrPC has been fully replaced by BNSS for matters from 1 July 2024 onward, and anticipatory bail — CrPC Section 438 — is now BNSS Section 482. A "current law" question should therefore be answered with the BNSS section number, while noting that the CrPC continues to govern proceedings that began before 1 July 2024.
Summary
Tort law covers civil wrongs remedied by unliquidated damages — negligence's four elements, defamation's dual civil-and-criminal character in India, nuisance, and vicarious liability — with Rylands v. Fletcher's strict liability and its narrower defences contrasted against M.C. Mehta v. Union of India's stricter, defence-free doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous industry.
The CPC, 1908 moves a civil suit through plaint, summons, written statement, framed issues, trial and judgment, with appeal (Sections 96/100), review (Section 114) and revision (Section 115) as three distinct, non-interchangeable post-judgment remedies.
Criminal procedure changed structurally on 1 July 2024: the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the CrPC (FIR now Section 173, arrest Section 35, anticipatory bail Section 482), introducing a new preliminary-inquiry step for mid-range cognizable offences, while pre-2024 matters continue under the old CrPC as a transitional carve-out.
