Question Description
PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.Q. Will she succeed in these claims?a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.c)Both (a) and (b)d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.