Volenti non fit injuria is a legal principle that originates from Roman law and is still recognized in many modern legal systems. The phrase translates to “to one who consents, no injury is done,” and it is often used to defend against claims of negligence or intentional harm. In other words, if a person willingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of an activity or event, they cannot later claim that they were injured as a result of someone else’s negligence or wrongdoing.

The principle of volenti non fit injuria is based on the idea that individuals have the right to make their own choices and decisions, and that they should be held responsible for the consequences of those choices. This principle is often applied in situations where the risks of an activity are known or clearly foreseeable, and the person has chosen to participate in spite of those risks.

One common example of the principle of volenti non fit injuria is in the context of sports and recreational activities. If someone willingly chooses to participate in a sport or activity that carries inherent risks, such as skiing, skydiving, or bungee jumping, they cannot later sue for damages if they are injured as a result of those risks. In these cases, it is understood that the person has assumed the risk of injury by choosing to participate in the activity.

The principle of volenti non fit injuria is also frequently applied in the context of employment. If an employee willingly accepts the risks of their job and is injured as a result, they may not be able to sue their employer for damages. For example, if a construction worker is aware of the risks of working on a building site and chooses to take the job anyway, they cannot later claim that their employer was negligent if they are injured on the job.

However, the principle of volenti non fit injuria is not absolute and can be limited in certain situations. For instance, if an employer forces an employee to assume a risk against their will, or if the risks of an activity are not made clear to the participant, the principle may not apply. Additionally, the principle does not apply if the injury was caused by intentional harm or criminal behavior.

In India, the principle of volenti non fit injuria has been recognized and applied by the courts in various cases. Here are a few landmark cases that have dealt with the principle:

1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court of India applied the principle of volenti non fit injuria in the context of professional wrestling. The plaintiff, who was a professional wrestler, was injured during a wrestling match and claimed that the defendants (the organizers and participants of the match) were negligent. The court held that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by choosing to participate in the wrestling match, and therefore, the defendants could not be held liable for his injuries.
2. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1959): This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that prohibited the slaughter of cows in the state of Bihar. The plaintiff, a meat seller, claimed that the law violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the law was valid, as the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of his business being affected by the law by choosing to sell meat in a state where the slaughter of cows was prohibited.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the principle of volenti non fit injuria in the context of environmental pollution. The plaintiffs were residents of Delhi who claimed that the defendants (industrial companies) were causing environmental pollution and were therefore liable for damages. The court held that the plaintiffs had voluntarily assumed the risk of living in a city and being exposed to pollution, and therefore, the defendants could not be held liable.
4. C.R. Bansal v. Union of India (1995): This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that imposed restrictions on the sale and possession of liquor in the state of Gujarat. The plaintiff, a liquor vendor, claimed that the law violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the law was valid, as the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of his business being affected by the law by choosing to sell liquor in a state where such sales were restricted.

In summary, the principle of volenti non fit injuria is a legal defense that can be used to protect against claims of negligence or intentional harm. It is based on the idea that individuals have the right to make their own choices and decisions, and that they should be held responsible for the consequences of those choices. While the principle is often applied in the context of sports and employment, it is not absolute and can be limited in certain situations.