Question

Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage

Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected. Give the appropriate answer-

• A. Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a fundamental right.
• B. Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a legal right
• C. Y cannot sue X because there is no injury or damage caused to Y
• D. Y cannot sue X because the candidate in whose favor he wanted to vote was declared elected.

Hint:

Separate the two Latin words. One means violation of a legal right, the other means actual loss. Decide which of the two is present here, and then check whether the option names the vote correctly.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
Y was an eligible voter whose vote the returning officer wrongly refused to register. The candidate Y wanted to vote for won anyway, so Y lost nothing in practical terms. The question is whether Y can still sue.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The Principle is a Latin maxim and the question itself translates it, injury without damage. Split the two words, because in tort they mean different things.
"Injuria" means the violation of a legal right.
"Damnum" means actual loss or harm, in money or in comfort.
The maxim says that where a legal right is violated, the person whose right it is can sue even if he suffered no loss at all. The right itself is what the law protects, so its infringement is actionable by itself.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
First, find the legal right. Y was an eligible voter and he duly tendered his vote. An eligible voter has a right to have his vote recorded. That right is conferred and protected by law, so it is a legal right.
Second, find the violation. X wrongly refused to register the vote. The word "wrongly" is given to us in the facts, so the refusal was not authorised. The legal right has been infringed. That is the injuria.
Third, look for damage. Y's preferred candidate won, so Y is no worse off in any measurable way. There is no damnum.
Fourth, apply the maxim. Injuria sine damnum means precisely this situation, a right violated with no loss following. The maxim holds that the action still lies. So Y can sue X.
The reason matters as much as the result. Y sues because a legal right of his was violated, not because he suffered anything.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Option (A) reaches the right result but calls the vote a fundamental right. The right to vote is conferred by the law governing elections, it is not one of the guaranteed fundamental rights. Since a principle question is decided by the reasoning, a wrong label sinks the option.
Option (C) says there was no injury or damage. It confuses the two words. There was indeed no damage, but there was injury, meaning the violation of a legal right, and injury alone is enough under this maxim.
Option (D) says the suit fails because the preferred candidate won. That is simply the absence of damage restated, and this maxim exists exactly to say that absence of damage is no bar.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Y can sue X because his legal right to vote was violated, even though no loss followed. That is option (B).