[5] Certain conduct which gives rise to a cause of action under tort law is additionally criminalised by the Indian Penal Code[6] or other criminal legislation.

Tort law aims to hold a tortfeasor accountable and consequently tort actions are brought directly by the aggrieved party in order to seek damages, whereas criminal law aims to punish and deter conduct deemed to be against the interests of society and criminal actions are thus brought by the state and penalties include imprisonment, fines, or execution.

Similar to the constitutional presumption of innocence in Indian criminal law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in tort actions in India.

[38] While Indian courts have been reluctant to award damages for the economic torts of simple and unlawful conspiracy as well as inducing breach of contract[39] due to the confused state of the law,[40] damages are regularly awarded for torts affecting economic interests under the conspiracy to injure and courts have referred to English precedent on the matter.

[41] The courts have been more willing to adopt English precedent in areas such as the tort of deceit,[42] unlawful interference with trade,[43] intimidation,[44] and malicious falsehood[45] which constitute an intentional attempt to undermine the interests of a specific party.

[60] While, in England and many other common law jurisdictions, this precedent is used to impose strict liability on certain areas of nuisance law[38] and is strictly "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land" under which "damages for personal injuries are not recoverable",[61] Indian courts have developed this rule into a distinct principle of absolute liability, where an enterprise is absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity.

Creating constitutional torts is a public law remedy for violations of rights, generally by agents of the state, and is implicitly premised on the strict liability principle.

[74] India's formulation of damages for tort cases is premised on the multiplier method, awarding compensation based on the degree of compromise to the earning ability of the victim.

[78] Indian jurisprudence identifies seven distinct categories of harm for which damages may be awarded in tort actions involving personal injuries.

These categories are referred to as heads of claim and can be divided into pecuniary and non-pecuniary subsets, analogous to the more general distinction made between economic and non-economic damages in other common law jurisdictions.

Indian tort law recognises the following pecuniary heads of claim:[79] Contemporary Indian jurisprudence also recognises the following non-pecuniary heads of claim:[80] In analysing pain and suffering, several factors such as severity of injury, medical treatment required, psychological stress[81] and long-term physical and emotional scars, would be taken into account.

[84] This view comes close to that expressed by Lord Scarman in Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority,[85] difference being that an award must be "made even for pain and suffering in case of unconscious plaintiffs".

[86] There are three guiding principles in measuring the quantum of compensation for pain and suffering:[87] Influenced by Rookes v Barnard,[88] Indian courts initially ruled that punitive damages can be awarded in only three categories:[89] However, this stand has since shifted with an expanding tort jurisdiction.

[90] In an environmental tort case, the defendant was made to pay exemplary damages "so that it may act as deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner".

Consequently, when a person fails to use reasonable care for the safety of either of himself or his property such that that they become blameworthy in part as an "author of [their] own wrong",[93] any damages they may recover are reduced in proportion with the extent of their liability.

[98] As a result, the system appears to resemble a "sunk cost auction", where litigants invest ever-increasing amounts to stave off higher losses.

[99] Despite being often cited as a litigious country,[100] the rate of litigation is low, due to problems such as long delays, heavy expenses and meagre damage awards.

The extremely strict approach, where even acts of God are not recognised as a defence is severely criticised especially since it disregarded the "generally accepted parameter of minimum competence and reasonable care".

[103] In hearing public interest litigation and creating constitutional torts, the Indian judiciary has been criticised for being overly activist and overstepping its jurisdiction.