Product liability in Indian tort law represents a critical evolution beyond classical contract doctrine, ensuring that manufacturers and suppliers cannot hide behind the absence of contractual privity when their negligence inflicts harm. The legal duty recognized here springs from the manufacturer's superior knowledge, control over production, and the reasonable foreseeability that a defective product will reach the ultimate consumer without intermediate inspection. While Indian law does not have a dedicated statutory code for products liability (unlike some Commonwealth jurisdictions), the foundational principle emerges from the general law of negligence embedded in tort doctrine and finds reinforcement through consumer protection statutes and the Indian Contract Act's provisions on implied warranties. The doctrine rests on the proposition that a manufacturer who places a product into the stream of commerce implicitly represents that it has been manufactured with reasonable care and is fit for the purpose for which it is sold. This duty arises not from contract but from the special relationship between manufacturer and consumer—a relationship of reliance and vulnerability unique in tort law. The principle gained prominence through judicial recognition that strict contractual requirements (buyer must contract directly with seller) would leave consumers defenseless against mass-manufactured goods, contradicting elementary fairness. The manufacturer's duty encompasses the design phase, materials selection, manufacturing process, quality control, assembly, packaging, labelling with adequate warnings, and instructions for safe use. The critical element distinguishing product liability from general negligence is the absence of any reasonable expectation that an intermediate party (wholesaler, retailer, or even the immediate purchaser if buying for another) would inspect or test the product before its use by the ultimate consumer. This absence of intervening inspection is why the manufacturer cannot escape liability by arguing they owed duty only to the buyer, not the user. The breach occurs when the product, due to defect in manufacture or design, causes injury or loss to the consumer. A defect exists when the product is in a condition not contemplated by the buyer and is dangerous to life, limb, or property. Indian courts have recognized three categories of defects: manufacturing defects (deviation from intended design), design defects (the intended design itself is unsafe), and defects in warnings or instructions. The causal connection between defect and damage must be clearly established; the consumer must prove that but for the defect, the injury would not have occurred. Remedies available include damages for personal injury, property damage, and in some contexts, economic loss, though recovery for pure economic loss without accompanying physical injury remains contested in Indian jurisprudence. The consumer may pursue claims under general negligence principles, under consumer protection legislation which has codified certain aspects of product liability, or occasionally under breach of implied warranty doctrines. Defences available to the manufacturer include proving that the defect did not exist at the time of supply, that the consumer's misuse was the sole or intervening cause, that the consumer had actual knowledge of the defect and proceeded anyway, that the defect was obvious and the consumer failed to exercise reasonable care, or that industry practice or regulatory compliance was followed. However, mere compliance with statutory standards does not automatically shield a manufacturer if the product is nonetheless dangerous, and the consumer's failure to read warnings does not necessarily break the manufacturer's liability if the warnings were inadequate or unintelligible. Product liability doctrine sits at the intersection of contract law (which recognizes warranties and fitness for purpose), consumer protection law (which imposes statutory duties on manufacturers and suppliers), and pure tort negligence (which focuses on foreseeability and breach of duty). It differs crucially from contractual liability because the duty is owed to all reasonably foreseeable users, not merely the purchaser, and it does not require privity. It must be distinguished from strict liability, which imposes liability without proving negligence—Indian law has largely resisted pure strict liability for products, preferring to require proof of negligence, though consumer protection statutes have introduced quasi-strict liability in certain contexts. CLAT examiners frequently distort this principle by introducing scenarios where intermediate inspection did occur or should have occurred (breaking the no-inspection requirement), by shifting focus to contractual relationships and implying that product liability requires contractual privity, by inserting clauses that purport to exclude liability (testing the candidate's understanding that manufacturers cannot contract out of liability to consumers), by obscuring whether the plaintiff is the direct purchaser or a third party (examining understanding of the duty's scope), or by mixing product liability with bailment or agency principles, creating confusion about which legal regime applies.