Civil Law

HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

Meaning

Equity, as it was based on good faith and conscience, demanded fairness, uprightness, and good faith from the defendant and the plaintiff. As said in the previous maxim, he who seeks equity must do equity, that is, one must be prepared and willing to behave and to do what, according to the principles of morality, justice, and reason, is fair and just. While applying this maxim the court believed that the behaviour of the plaintiff was not against conscience before he came to the court for its assistance. The previous maxim related to the plaintiff’s conduct inside the court and thereafter.

But this maxim goes a step ahead and expects the plaintiff’s conduct above approach, just and fair before he comes to the court. He must be clear of any participation in fraud or similar inequitable conduct. To impose injustice upon another and then to seek the court’s assistance smacks like Satan preaching the bible to his adversaries. It is therefore certain that one who has not acted equitably is not entitled to it, and the doors of the equity courts will be shut against him in the sense that the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf to acknowledge his right or to grant him any relief.

Application and Cases:

This maxim is applicable to a plaintiff as well as a defendant. It applies to cases of benami transactions. In such transactions property is conveyed in the same of a benamidar but the real person who purchased the property of another. Such transactions are connected with a particular purpose of fraud and therefore when the purpose has been achieved, the real owner will not be allowed to recover the property. Working to the maxim could be seen while relieving specific performance, injunction, rescission, or cancellation.

In the Highwaymen case, two robbers were partners in their own way. Due to a disagreement in shares, one of them filed a bill against another for accounts of the profits of robbery. Courts of equity grant such a relief in case of partnership, but there was a case where the cause of action arose from an illegal occupation engagement. The equity court refused to help them. Not only this, but their solicitors were also taken into custody, fined 50 pounds, and imprisoned till payment, and the counsel who signed the bill was made to pay the costs.

In the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai PatelVS. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpon (1985) 2 SCC 35, The petitioner in the case was removed from service on grounds of proved misconduct, getting employment in another service by stating in his application that he had voluntarily left the previous service because of his transfer. Even though such conduct did not fall within the specified misconduct, the second employer removed him from service, considering his act as misconduct.

The petitioner went to the labor court and the High Court of Gujarat but failed. He therefore filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court which also failed. It was expressly stated by the Court here that persons seeking relief must come before the Court with clean hands.

Limitation of the Maxim:

While applying this maxim, as it is pointed out before, the general or total conduct of the plaintiff is not to be considered. His general conduct may not be satisfactory, but if that has nothing to do with the matter of the suit or if that has no immediate and necessary connection with the equity sued for, the court should not take it into account.

Where a transaction is against public policy and the plaintiff’s hand is tainted, however, for the sake of the public, justice has to be given to uphold the policy or the moral values, and the parties thereto may be relieved.
Where a party with unclean hands repents for his conduct before his unjust plans are carried out, the court will not stick to the letter of the maxim and will extend its assistance for doing justice.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY, AND HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

Both the maxims purport to regulate equitable relief and both seem at first sight to be expressing the same thing, but the present maxim is a condition precedent to seeking equitable relief, while the preceding maxim exposes the condition subsequent to the relief sought.
The present maxim refers to the plaintiff’s conduct before he approaches the court, while the preceding maxim refers to the plaintiff’s conduct as the court thinks it ought to be after he comes to the court.
If the plaintiff’s conduct is unfair and unconscionable, it would not entitle him to the relief sought. In contrast, according to the preceding maxim, the plaintiff has to mold his behavior according to the impositions by the court and thus pay the price to the court in this form for enforcing his equitable claim.
Consequently, in the preceding maxim, the plaintiff has an option or a choice before him either to submit to the condition put by the court or to get out of the court, while in the present maxim, his previous inequitable conduct has taken away and snatched that choice from him. His equitable right therefore can neither be recognised nor enforced.
The present maxim looks to the past, while the preceding one looks to the future.