Question:medium

Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named "Jai Santoshi Maa". Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.

Show Hint

Ask which legal right of Ms. Usha the theatre has broken. Hurt sentiment is real harm, but harm without a broken right is damnum sine injuria.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.
  • She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.
  • She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum)
  • It is a case of complete judicial discretion.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

An injunction is a strong remedy, and no court hands one out just because a person is upset. The court first looks for a legal right sitting behind the request. So the way into this problem is to ask a single question: does Ms. Usha own a right, recognised by law, that a film must not portray goddesses in a way she dislikes? If the answer is no, her suit dies at the threshold no matter how sincere her feelings are.

  1. She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right: This identifies the real defect. Hurt sentiment is harm, but harm is not the same as legal injury. The law protects listed interests such as body, property, reputation and contract. Being offended by a portrayal is not on that list, so there is no right for a court to enforce.
  2. She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression: Right answer, wrong path. Article 19(1)(a) is a shield against the State, and it carries reasonable restrictions of its own. It is not what defeats a private civil suit between Usha and a theatre. The suit fails on Usha's side of the case, for want of a right, not on the theatre's side.
  3. She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum): Wrong on the law and wrong on the maxim. No such right has been recognised. Also, injuria sine damnum describes a broken legal right that caused no loss, as in Ashby v. White. Usha's position is the mirror image, loss of peace of mind with no right broken, which is damnum sine injuria.
  4. It is a case of complete judicial discretion: Whether a suit discloses a cause of action is settled by law, not by a judge's free choice. Discretion enters only after a right is established, when the court weighs whether to grant the relief.

So option (A) is the answer. The facts are drawn from Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, where the court declined to injunct the screening of "Jai Santoshi Maa" and added the practical point that a person who finds a film offensive can choose not to see it.

Let's summarize:

  • An injunction needs a legal right behind it, not merely hurt feelings.
  • Hurt religious sentiment is damnum sine injuria, damage without the breach of a legal right.
  • Injuria sine damnum is the opposite situation, and option (C) uses it backwards.

Ms. Usha has no legally recognised right to be protected from a portrayal she dislikes, so her suit does not lie and option (A) is correct.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution