The maxims of equity are foundational principles used by courts to guide the application of equitable
remedies, ensuring justice in cases where the strict application of the law would lead to unfair
outcomes.
1. Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy
Ubi jus ibi remedium
("Where there is a right, there is a remedy.")
This principle emphasizes that for every legal right violated, there exists a corresponding
legal remedy. It underpins the concept of justice, ensuring that the law provides redress
when rights are infringed.
Elements of the Maxim
Legal Rights: The maxim applies only when a recognized legal right exists. A right must be
enforceable by law.
Legal Remedy: If such a right is violated, courts or legal systems provide remedies, which
may include damages, injunctions, restitution, or other forms of redress.
Principle of Justice: This maxim reflects the idea that justice must be accessible, ensuring
that rights are not meaningless.
Case Laws-
Ashby Vs. White case, which centers on the idea that a person is entitled to a remedy if they
are granted a right, deals with the situation where a qualified voter was denied the
opportunity to cast their ballot and filed a lawsuit against the returning officer
Bhagwati Charan v. Union of India (1983): A government employee was wrongfully
dismissed without due process. The Court held that the dismissal violated the right to natural
justice and provided appropriate relief.
Application in Indian Law:
Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empower courts to provide remedies for
the violation of fundamental rights.
Courts often grant equitable remedies like injunctions, specific performance, or restitution
when legal remedies (e.g., damages) are insufficient.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court upheld the principle by ensuring that the right to life and personal liberty
(Article 21) includes fair procedures and remedies.
2. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
(There is no specific Latin phrase, but this principle is sometimes expressed in Latin as Nemo
allegans suam turpitudinem audiendus est — "No one alleging their own wrong is to be
heard.")
Elements of the Maxim
Self-Incrimination: The individual relying on their own illegal act as a basis for legal relief will
not be entertained.
Public Policy: The maxim is rooted in public policy, which aims to discourage illegal activities
and uphold the sanctity of law.
Clean Hands Doctrine: It overlaps with the principle that one who comes to court must come
with clean hands.
Case Laws-
Holman v. Johnson (1775)- In this case the plaintiff sold tea to the defendant, knowing it
would be smuggled into England, violating customs laws. The court refused to enforce the
claim, stating that no court will assist a plaintiff who relies on an illegal act.
Tinsley v. Milligan (1994): Two individuals jointly owned a property but concealed ownership
for fraudulent purposes. When disputes arose, one sought to rely on the illegal agreement.
The Court ruled that a person cannot rely on their own illegality to establish a claim.
Application in Indian Law:
The principle has been acknowledged and applied in various Indian legal contexts,
particularly under the doctrines of equity and public policy.
Property and Contract Law
o Doctrine of Illegality: Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, agreements involving
unlawful consideration or objects are void (Section 23). A party to such an
agreement cannot seek enforcement, as it involves turpitude.
o Case Law: Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (1959)
The Supreme Court held that no claim can arise from an illegal or immoral contract.
Electoral Laws
o N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952):
A candidate engaging in corrupt practices cannot seek relief for disqualification
arising from their misconduct.
Principle of Clean Hands in Equity
o Indian courts have consistently refused relief to litigants who approach the courts
with unclean hands or rely on their own wrongdoing.
o Example: B. P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy (2005)
The Supreme Court reiterated that parties relying on illegal acts or fraud cannot
expect judicial protection.
Criminal Law
o Principle of Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
A person voluntarily engaging in an illegal act cannot later complain about the
consequences.
o Case Law: P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
The court observed that individuals cannot use their illegal actions (e.g., attempt to
commit suicide) as a basis for relief without facing legal consequences.
3. Equity follows the law
Aequitas sequitur legem
("Equity follows the law.")
It signifies that equitable principles cannot override or contradict established legal rules.
Equity operates within the framework of law, supplementing and refining it to achieve
fairness and justice without undermining legal certainty.
Features of the Maxim
Equity as a Supplement: Equity does not replace the law but acts as a corrective measure to
address gaps or rigidities in legal rules.
Limits of Equity: Equity cannot create rights or remedies that conflict with statutory
provisions or well-established legal doctrines.
Balance of Justice: The maxim ensures a balance between legal certainty and fairness.
Case Laws-
Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)- A dispute arose between legal and equitable rights, leading to a
conflict between the common law court and the Court of Chancery. Lord Ellesmere ruled
that when law and equity conflict, equity prevails to ensure justice, provided it does not
contradict statutory provisions.
Maxwell v. Murphy (1957)- The court held that equitable doctrines must align with statutory
provisions and cannot contravene the express mandate of the legislature.
Application in Indian Law:
In India, the maxim is applied in the administration of justice, particularly where equitable
principles are invoked to fill gaps in statutory law or address injustices.
Constitutional Law
Doctrine of Basic Structure:
o Equity operates to ensure that laws and constitutional amendments adhere to the
principles of justice and fairness, but it cannot override constitutional provisions.
o Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court balanced constitutional amendments with equitable doctrines,
ensuring fairness while respecting the constitutional framework.
Writ Jurisdiction:
o Articles 32 and 226 empower courts to issue equitable remedies like writs, but these
must align with legal principles and constitutional mandates.
Contract Law
Specific Relief Act, 1963:
o The principles of equity are codified in this statute, which governs remedies like
specific performance and injunctions.
o Example: Courts may refuse specific performance if granting it would cause undue
hardship, reflecting equity within the bounds of the law.
Contracts Void for Illegality:
o Equitable remedies cannot be granted for contracts involving illegal considerations or
objects, as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
o Example: Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (1959)
The Supreme Court refused to enforce an agreement that contravened statutory
provisions.
Case Laws-
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court held that equitable
principles could not override constitutional provisions or statutory law.
Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.K. Chaudhary (2016): The court reiterated that equity cannot
grant a remedy where statutes expressly prohibit it.
K.S. Gopalakrishnan v. Karunakaran (2004): The Kerala High Court emphasized that equity
supplements legal rights but cannot create remedies in contravention of statutory provisions.
4. Delay defeats equity
Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit
("Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.")
It underscores that courts will provide remedies to those who take timely action to assert or
protect their rights. Conversely, those who delay unnecessarily or sleep on their rights may
find that equity refuses to assist them
Features of the Maxim
Timely Action: Individuals must act promptly and within a reasonable time to enforce their
rights.
Deterrence of Delay: The law discourages unnecessary delays, as they can lead to evidence
deterioration and unfairness to the opposing party.
Doctrine of Laches: Courts may refuse equitable relief to a claimant who delays
unreasonably, even if there is no statutory limitation.
Case Laws-
Smith v. Clay (1767)- Lord Camden stated, “A court of equity has always refused its aid to
stale demands where a party has slept upon his rights.”
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874)- The court emphasized that equitable relief is barred if
a claimant's delay in seeking it leads to injustice or prejudices the defendant.
Application in Indian Law:
This maxim is applied across various legal domains, including constitutional law, property
law, and civil litigation. Its essence is reflected in doctrines like limitation, laches, and
estoppel.
Limitation Act, 1963: The statute prescribes specific timeframes within which legal claims
must be filed. If a claim is made after the limitation period, courts will not entertain it.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20 of the Act emphasizes that courts may refuse specific
performance of contracts if the claimant has delayed unreasonably, causing prejudice to the
other party.
Case Laws-
K.V. Raja Lakshmiah Shetty v. State of Mysore (1987): The Supreme Court held that undue
delay in asserting a right can disentitle the claimant to relief, especially when the delay
causes prejudice to the other party.
R. N. Bose v. Union of India (1970): The court refused to grant relief to employees who
delayed challenging their wrongful termination for years, stating that equity aids the vigilant.
5. Equity acts in personam
Aequitas agit in personam
("Equity acts upon the person.")
It reflects the principle that equitable remedies and obligations are directed at the individual
rather than the property or object in question. Unlike common law remedies, which are
often enforced in rem (against the property), equity requires personal compliance and
operates on the conscience of the party.
Features of the Maxim
Personal Compliance: Equity requires the individual to act or refrain from acting, as dictated
by the court.
Court's Discretion: Equitable relief depends on the discretion of the court and considers
fairness, justice, and the specific circumstances of the case.
Binding Nature: The principle ensures that equitable obligations are binding on the
conscience of the individual, regardless of their location or the property involved.
Case Laws-
Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750)- A dispute arose over a boundary agreement concerning land
located in America. The Court of Chancery exercised its jurisdiction to enforce the
agreement, as equity acts on the person, not the land.
Application in Indian Law:
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Specific Performance (Section 10):
Courts compel parties to perform contractual obligations, as equity acts on the person.
Example: In a property sale agreement, the court may order the seller to transfer the
property.
Injunctions (Section 37-41):
Equity restrains individuals from acting in ways that violate others’ rights.
Trusts Act, 1882
Equity governs trusts by compelling trustees to fulfill their fiduciary duties and act in good
conscience.
M.C. Chockalingam v. Mangilal (1969)- The dispute involved the transfer of property and
equitable rights arising from a trust. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that equity operates on
the conscience of the trustee and directed them to act in accordance with equitable
principles.
6. Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails
Qui prior est tempore potior est jure
("He who is earlier in time is stronger in right.")
This principle establishes that earlier rights or claims take precedence over subsequent ones
when competing legal interests arise. It promotes fairness and stability by recognizing the
priority of earlier rights unless subsequent rights have a legally valid or superior claim.
Features of the Maxim
Priority of Time: The principle asserts that rights acquired earlier in time have a stronger
legal standing.
Fairness and Certainty: It avoids conflicts by resolving competing claims based on the time of
creation or registration of rights.
Applicability in Equitable Remedies: The principle operates in equity as well as law, ensuring
justice in cases of competing equitable interests.
Case Laws-
Rice v. Rice (1853)- The case dealt with a conflict between two equitable interests over
property. The Court Held that the earlier equitable interest was given priority, as equity
follows the principle of "first in time, first in right."
Pilcher v. Rawlins (1872)- A subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice
challenged an earlier unregistered equitable interest. The bona fide purchaser’s rights
prevailed as they had no notice of the prior interest.
Application in Indian Law:
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 48:
When a person transfers the same property to multiple persons, the earlier transfer takes
precedence over the later one, provided the earlier transfer is valid and complete.
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Competing claims arising from conflicting contracts are resolved by prioritizing the earlier
contract if it meets all legal conditions.
Case Laws-
Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer (1961)- Competing claims arose over a sale deed and an
earlier agreement to sell. The Supreme Court gave priority to the earlier agreement to sell,
stating that earlier claims have a stronger standing in law.
Kedar Nath v. Sheonarain (1970)- Two mortgage deeds were created for the same property
at different times. The court held that the first mortgage had priority over the subsequent
one, as it was earlier in time.
