Doctrine of "Unclean Hands" - He who comes into equity must come with clean hands: A Short Note

Doctrine of "Unclean Hands"

Introduction

It is a trite law that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Courts cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. As per the Doctrine of Unclean Hands, He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Countless books and treatises have been written as to what is meant by equity and clean hands. However, the scope of this article is not to write a Research Paper on equity rather the objective is simply to gather an understanding as to the application of doctrine of “unclean hands” by the Courts.

It is generally understood that a Court of Equity refuses relief to a Litigant whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 16, has explained this doctrine beautifully and it explains that the original maxim in this respect is “he that hath committed an inequity, shall not have equity”. In cases relating to this maxim, the relief is refused by the Courts where the transaction in question is based on the Claimant’s fraud or misrepresentation. The relief is also refused in cases where the Claimant seeks to enforce a Security that has been wrongly obtained or in other such cases. But even if the dirt from the hands is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question to be asked. Does it mean that the Claimant must come with perfect propriety of conduct?

Applicability of the Doctrine of “Unclean Hands”

What is important to be seen is that the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought. The conduct complained of must have a direct and immediate nexus with the relief sought. In some ways, it could be said that the dirt in the hands must not be only in a legal sense but also in the moral sense. Thus mere immorality or mere illegality would not attract application of this doctrine or maxim. Both, illegality and immorality, must exist in the action of the Claimant.

It is pertinent to note that there is no straightjacket formula to determine applicability of this maxim. All the above mentioned factors must exist in conjunction to invoke this maxim or doctrine.

According to ‘Spry on Equitable Remedies’, 4th Edition, this doctrine or maxim could also be applied in situations where the Claimant knew of the ignorance or misapprehension of the Defendant but nonetheless did not take steps to provide information or to correct the material error, or a fortiori, where he put the defendant off his guard or hurried him into making a decision without proper enquiry.

The maxim is also applicable in cases of existence of parallel or alternate remedies such as where a Claimant is approaching a Court without informing the Other Court where the same relief is being sought or where the alternative remedy has already been exhausted and the suppression of this fact is made before the Court. In such cases, the fate of the Claimant would depend upon whether the suppression of such fact could have affected the final disposal of the Court Proceedings on merits. This has been held in cases such as Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, reported at (1969) 1 SCC 110, and K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commissioner, reported at AIR 1954 SC 207.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963

The doctrine also finds its existence in various Statutes such as the Specific Relief Act of 1963. Section 17, Section 18 and Section 20 specifically deal with the situations as could be contemplated under the doctrine of “unclean hands”. These sections deal with situations such as where a Vendor knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property or where the Contract has been changed, by fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, in a manner that does not contain all the terms agreed to between the parties or where the terms of the Contract give an unfair advantage to the Claimant over the Defendant.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, reported at (2007) 6 SCC 120, has explained this doctrine at length. Many of the excerpts reproduced in this article have also been mentioned in Arunima Barauh. We see that the doctrine of “unclean hands” is not a new concept. It is a basic principle of equity and has been applied by the Courts since many centuries. However, the usage and applicability of this doctrine is increasing as today the Claimants are inventing new ways to supress facts from the Courts. The Courts, by applying this doctrine, make sure that such unscrupulous Litigants are not able to abuse the process of the Courts.

1. Doctrine of Parens Patriae and the Constitution of India

2. Doctrine of Delegated Legislation and the Constitution of India
3. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Constitution of India

4. Doctrine of Occupied Field and the Constitution of India
5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Constitution of India
6. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Constitution of India

7. Doctrine of Waiver and the Constitution of India

8. Doctrine of Severability and the Constitution of India 

9. Doctrine of Eclipse and the Constitution of India

10. Doctrine of Repugnancy and the Constitution of India 
11. Doctrine of bona vacantia or Escheat and the Constitution of India
12. Origin and Scope of Doctrine of Pleasure in India
13. Doctrine or Principle of 'Strict Necessity' 
14. Doctrine or Theory of 'de facto' Prejudice
15. Doctrine of "Unclean Hands"