INTRODUCTION:

The law of equity is based on the jurisprudence of fairness, good conscience, and equality.
Chancery Courts welcomed those whose rights were infringed but did not have a remedy
under common law. Equity was based on good faith; it demanded fairness, uprightness, and
good faith not only from the defendant but also from the plaintiff. It depends upon the
discretion of the court to grant relief or not, and it takes into consideration whether the
plaintiff who is claiming relief himself is without any stain or not. In the application of this
maxim, the court does not take into consideration the general conduct of the plaintiff but
rather the personal conduct of the plaintiff. It is well said principle in the case of Gross v.
Gross (1983) that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.

HISTORICAL BACK GROUND:

The maxim was based on the principle of equality, i.e., everyone is equal in the eyes of the
law. The Courts of Equity ruled that one could not be treated fairly if the reason for his grief
was his own inequity.

MEANING OF THE MAXIM:

As it is said in the maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity," 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 person who comes to Courts of Equity should
have upright conduct. It means, "He hath committed an inequity shall not have equity." There
should be an exemplary record of conduct regarding the transaction under dispute for a
person who files a complaint in equity court.

BASIS OF MAXIM:

This idea is expressed in the Latin maxim "Ex turpi casua non oritur acti action,which means
that no cause of action arises from a base cause. In other words, we can say that “For an
illegal cause, there can be no lawsuit." There are four basic principles on which this maxim is
based. Following are these principles:

1. Immoral Consideration: This is the principle that an action cannot be found on an

immoral basis.
2. Fraud: It is a second principle that a right of action cannot arise out of fraud. That is to
say, he must be clear of any participation in fraud or deception.
3. His own Wrong: The third basic principle on which this maxim is based is that a person
cannot take advantage of his own mistakes.
4. His own inequity: The fourth basic principle is that a person cannot base his action on his
own inequity. That is to say, he must be clear of any participation in any deceitful action
or similar inequitable conduct.
APPLICATION:

1. Illegal Contract: Where the parties to an illegal agreement appear before the court of
equity for division of their respective shares towards the property obtained. It is revealed
to the court that they have obtained the property by robbery; equity will refuse to give
relief to any party.

Case Law; 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 the profits of robbery.
Courts of equity were used to grant relief in partnership cases, but here was a case where
the cause of action arose from an illegal engagement or occupation. Under this maxim,
the equity court refused to help them. Their solicitors were also taken into custody, fined
$50, and imprisoned until payment, and the counsel who signed the bill was made to pay
the costs.

2. Specific performance: If the plaintiff has been guilty of undue advantage, the court of
equity will refuse the specific performance of a contract.

Case Law; Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India: Persons invoking an equitable
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should do so with clean hands and should not
conceal the material facts. Clean hands are thus a pre-condition to invoke the aid of equity
in cases of specific performance.

3. Equitable Misconduct: This maxim is very clear when it talks about equitable
misconduct because those who act within the limits of their legal rights are free from any
blemish. These cases explain that a legal act does not become illegal merely because of
the improper motives of its doer. (Chasmore vs. Richards and Gloucester vs. Grammar
School Case).
4. Grant of Relief: One who has not acted equitable is not entitled to a grant of relief. The
doors of the equity courts will be shut against him in the sense that the court will refuse to
interfere in granting him any relief on his behalf.
5. Commission of Fraud: A and B enter into an agreement to divide equally between
themselves property obtained by fraud. The fraud is accomplished, and the whole profit is
in the hands of A. B sues A in equity for partition. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

Case Law; Overton vs. Banister: Where a minor fraudulently conceals his age and
induces his trustees to commit a breach of trust and deliver a certain amount, he cannot
get assistance from equity courts to recover that amount again from them. The basis of his
decision was the inequitable conduct of the infant as well as the fraudulent concealment
of facts.

6. Suppression of Material Fact: The petitioner was guilty of suppressing a material fact
about his second employer, so his Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The petitioner in
this case was removed from service on the ground of proved misconduct, getting
employment in another service by stating in his application that he had voluntarily left the
 previous service because of a transfer. Even though such conduct did not fall within the
specified misconduct, the second employer removed him from service in view of his act
of misconduct. He applied from the Labour Court to the Supreme Court, but with no
result. It was expressly stated by the courts that persons seeking relief must come to the
court with clean hands. (RV. Patel vs. A’BAD Municipal Corporation)
7. Misusing the Registered Label: Where a person uses the registered label of the plaintiff
with a view to represent his own wares and manufacturer goods resembling those of
others, he does a deliberate wrong, so he cannot be allowed to take out an injunction
against others restraining them from imitating his label. (Abdul Qadar Ali Bhoy vs. M.H,
3 BLR 220)
8. Abuse the process of the court: One cannot abuse the process of the court, and one also
should not claim its protection. In a case, the “Special Leave Petition” was dismissed for
abuse of the process of the Court.

Case Law; Ahmad Siddiqui Case: This fact was not disclosed, and a second petition was
made, which was dismissed for lack of clean hands. But in this case, it was held by the
Supreme Court that the appeal could not be dismissed only on the ground that the
applicant had not approached the court with clean hands.

LIMITATION OF MAXIM:

Conduct of the Plaintiff: The courts must consider this fact while applying this maxim that
the general conduct of the plaintiff must not be considered. The conduct of the plaintiff may
not be trustworthy, in general or in total, but that has nothing to do with the matter of the suit.
So only his conduct regarding the suit ought to be considered.

Case Law; Loughran vs. Loughran: The above-mentioned principle was elaborated in this
case that equity does not demand that its suitors lead blameless lives.

RECOGNITION OF MAXIM IN PAKISTAN:

This maxim has been recognized in Pakistan as well.

Trust Act (Section 23): According to Section 23 of the Trusts Act 1882, if a contract was
entered into by the trustee in breach of trust, such a contract cannot be enforced.

Specific Relief Act (Section 17): If a seller has defective title to property, he cannot enforce
it if the contract relates to the sale of property.

Specific Relief Act (Section 18): According to Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act,
contracts that have been entered into by fraud cannot be enforced.

Contract Act (Section 18): The contracts that have been entered into by misrepresentation
are voidable and therefore cannot be enforced by the person who misrepresented themselves.
Transfer of Property Act (Section 78): If there is any defective title to the property, then
there can be no enforcement of the mortgage agreement.

EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIM:

i) If the transaction is against public policy

ii) If the party repents for his conduct before his unjust plans are carried out.

CONCLUSION:

To conclude that in order to get any equitable relief, it is necessary that the plaintiff not be
guilty of any illegal act in the transaction or matter that he wants to enforce. The court takes
into account the legal behavior of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is guilty of fraud or
misrepresentation of any illegal act, then under this maxim he would not be given any
equitable relief.