- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
In India, the legal framework regarding punitive damages is not as widely recognized as in some other jurisdictions like the United States. Indian law generally focuses on compensatory and restitutionary damages to make the injured party whole. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, courts in India have allowed punitive damages, particularly in tort cases involving egregious misconduct. The enforceability of such damages depends on the nature of the dispute, the governing law, and the applicable public policy considerations.
Under Indian law, punitive damages are primarily recognized in tort cases, such as those involving fraud, defamation, or gross negligence. However, they are not commonly awarded in contractual disputes, where the emphasis is usually on compensating the injured party for actual loss suffered.
Indian courts are generally reluctant to award punitive damages in cases involving contract law, as it goes against the principles of compensatory justice and the notion of fairness in contractual obligations. The legal system tends to focus on making the wronged party whole rather than punishing the wrongdoer.
In some landmark cases, the Supreme Court of India has allowed punitive damages in cases of egregious conduct. For instance, in Rising Sun Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Shree Ram International, the court observed that in cases where the conduct of the wrongdoer is egregious, oppressive, or done in bad faith, punitive damages may be awarded.
Punitive damages are also sometimes awarded in cases involving intentional torts such as defamation and misrepresentation, especially when the defendant’s actions were malicious or reckless. Courts have recognized the need for punitive damages to deter future misconduct and protect social interests.
The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not explicitly provide for punitive damages in arbitration proceedings. However, if the underlying contract or applicable law allows for such damages, the arbitrators may, in rare cases, award punitive damages.
According to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, an arbitral award may be set aside if it violates public policy. If an arbitral tribunal awards punitive damages in violation of Indian public policy, such an award could be subject to challenge or refusal of enforcement in India.
Indian law generally adheres to the principle of compensatory damages, which aim to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Punitive damages are considered an exception and are not awarded unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent or gross misconduct.
Indian courts may refuse to enforce an award that is deemed to contravene public policy. The enforceability of punitive damages could be contested on the grounds that such damages are excessive or contrary to the spirit of fairness and justice that underpins the Indian legal system.
In cases involving fraud or bad faith actions, Indian courts have awarded punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. For instance, in a tort case involving defamation, where the defendant’s actions were willfully malicious, the court awarded punitive damages as a means to deter similar misconduct in the future.
In the case of consumer protection, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has also awarded punitive damages when the conduct of a business was found to be oppressive, fraudulent, or exploitative, especially in situations involving defective products or misleading advertising.
In some cases, if a court or arbitrator awards punitive damages, the losing party may challenge the award under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act or under the relevant civil procedure if they believe it violates Indian public policy.
Under the New York Convention, punitive damages could face difficulties in enforcement outside of India if the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought does not recognize such damages or considers them to contravene public policy.
In contrast to Indian law, jurisdictions like the United States and Canada more frequently award punitive damages, especially in cases involving gross negligence, fraud, or tortious conduct. Indian law is much more restrained in awarding punitive damages, and their enforceability is significantly more limited.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
