Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

Spread the love

Post Views: 11

Introduction

The Doctrine of In Pari Delicto is regarded as a fundamental principle of law, which is found in both common law and civil law traditions, and applies across jurisdictions and preventing courts from providing relief to parties who are equally at fault or responsible for engaging in illegal or immoral conduct, ensuring that courts do not assist in such transactions. The maxim in pari delicto means “in equal fault”, which is a part of another Latin maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis, meaning “in a case of equal fault, the defendant’s position is stronger,” expanding its meaning and application.

This maxim embodies the moral and legal idea that no one should be permitted who seeks to profit from their own wrongdoing or to invoke the court’s aid in enforcing an agreement that is tainted with illegality or immorality. This doctrine dictates that when both parties conspire equally in an illegal or unlawful scheme, such as entering into a contract with an illegal purpose, evading tax, paying bribes, or any other unlawful contract, the law and the court leave them as it finds them, without affording relief to either side, thereby preventing individual from invoke the judicial process to recover benefits from arrangements that are themselves contrary to law and tainted by illegality.

The doctrine serves a dual function in countries like England, the United States, Canada, or India, as it preserves judicial integrity by ensuring courts do not lend a legal hand or legitimacy to unlawful acts, and discourages parties from entering into such arrangements in the first place. More importantly, the rule is not absolute. Many jurisdictions adopt a nuanced approach, carving out exceptions where the fault is unequal or where the parties are not equally culpable. The court may still grant relief where one party is less culpable, has acted under coercion or undue influence, or has statutory protection, or where denying relief would offend broader principles of justice. With this flexible approach, the doctrine stands as a universal safeguard, ensuring the legal system does not become an instrument to support and enforce illegality and balancing strictly legality with equity and public policy.

What is the doctrine of In Pari Delicto

The Doctrine of In Pari Delicto is a legal principle that applies when both parties to a transaction are equally at fault; then the law will not assist either party, leaving the situation as it is, with the defendant in a stronger position than the plaintiff. The doctrine is used by the court to refuse relief to a plaintiff if their case relies on their own unlawful or illegal conduct, unless and until there is an exception, making one party less equal or not equal at fault for the unlawful or illegal transaction.

The maxim works on the fundamental principle that “if both parties are equally at fault in an illegal contract or arrangement, the plaintiff cannot seek enforcement or any kind of relief from the court”. The parties in the transaction should be “left where they are found”, with each party left untouched so neither being able to seek damages or relief through the judicial proceedings. The doctrine is also closely related to other maxims like ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which refers to “from a dishonourable cause, an action does not arise,” and nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans, which refers to “no one shall be heard who invokes his own guilt”. These maxims are to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing legal action if the claim is based on their own illegal or immoral conduct and not to take advantage of the legal proceedings in the process. The doctrine mainly functions as a defense mechanism to prevent the wrongdoers from misusing the legal process.

Evolution of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of In Pari Delicto is a doctrine that has been around the world for a century, has the roots of this universal principle can be traced in Roman law, which the courts were to follow so that they may not assist those who seek to profit from their own wrongdoing. The doctrine embodies the concept of Roman law while also evolving for a better and flexible approach, as it literally means “where both parties are equally at fault, the defendant’s position is stronger.” The maxim with the broader approach and function was later absorbed into the English common law, where it became firmly entrenched and a central rule in contract and equity jurisprudence.

The main objective of the doctrine is not to let wrongdoers take advantage of the legal process, while also having a flexible approach for exceptions. This doctrine spread across the world as the common law spread through colonial systems and influenced legal frameworks. The doctrine also became part of the Indian law through the colonial system. With the codification of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the doctrine was able to find a clear statutory footing in India, and so Indian law directly inherited the essence of the doctrine from the English common law and its jurisprudence.

Salient Features of the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

The Doctrine of In Pari Delicto essence, lies in the concept and idea that courts should not reward or assist those who willingly participate in unlawful or immoral conduct or transaction. The purpose of the doctrine is to serve as a shield and a safeguard for the integrity of the legal system.

The core of the doctrine is focused on equal guilt or participation. The doctrine can only apply where both parties are equally at fault and share comparable blame in the illegality, thus the requirements of “equal fault”. The denial of judicial assistance can be stated as a feature. The court’s refusal to enforce agreements tainted by illegality, fraud, or any other transactions that go against public morals and “leaves the parties where it finds them.”

However, the most important part of the doctrine is that it applies only when the claim itself relies on an illegal purpose, and can still be very flexible, as if the illegal element can be severed, and a valid claim exists separately, some relief may still be granted or if the transitions or contract of the illegal conduct is under fraud, coercion, or undue influence the court may do the same. The principal also reflected a broader policy that the legal system should not be used to legitimize illegal or unlawful arrangements, making it a vital public policy function.

Landmarks Judgments

Sita Ram Vs. Radhabai (1968)

The Supreme Court expounded the limits of In Pari Delicto in India. While contracts for illegal or immoral purposes are void, the court stated, one party to such a contract cannot recover from another party that is no more at fault. The Court concluded that strict application of the maxim might unfairly discriminate against those of lesser culpability.

The judgment laid down three exceptions, so to speak, namely: i) where illegal purpose was not substantially carried out, ii) when the plaintiff was not in pari delicto, and iii) when the plaintiff’s case was independent of the illegality. These exceptions mellowed the harsh impact of In Pari Delicto and brought in the element of equitable flexibility into the Indian Contract Act.

Mohd. Salimuddin Vs. Misri Lal (1986)

The Supreme Court relied on In Pari Delicto in a tenancy dispute arising out of a prohibited loan given by the tenant to his landlord. The landlord claimed the contract was illegal, and therefore, the tenant couldn’t seek protection. The Court declined to follow this, stating that the doctrine is inapplicable when there is an obvious imbalance of power or oppression. To treat the tenant and landlord as similarly culpable, it said, would be a “greater judicial sin.”

Limitations of the Doctrine

In Pari Delicto is known for being a harsh rule despite its sound public policy. By refusing to afford any remedy to parties who have always been in pari delicto it can cause an innocent party to suffer the consequences of illegality, punishing the least blameworthy or involuntary party and rewarding the more blameworthy by affording them an unfair benefit. This all-for-one tactic threatens to become a way to turn equity into inequity.

There is another objection to an “equal fault” response, relating to the problem of knowing when parties are actually “in equal fault.” The question of being forced, imbalanced power structures, or deceit ruins this assessment, which then becomes subjective and differs from case to case. The doctrine also goes against the principle of equity, as it may permit one party to keep the benefits of illegality without contributing to a loss suffered.

In addition, too rigid an application may deter courts from giving voice to broader public policy considerations, like the protection of the defenseless or the prevention of systemic abuse. It reduces trust in commercial transactions as it may enable more powerful parties to take advantage of weaker parties under the cloak of mutual fault.

For these reasons, contemporary legal systems tend to dilute the doctrine through exceptions aimed at preventing it from becoming an instrument of odd results. To accommodate these competing objectives, the overall trend has been to achieve a balance between the deterrence of crime and the equitable policy of not allowing one wrongdoer to make an undue profit at the expense of another.

Relevant Legal Provisions

In Pari Delicto is a combination of statutory provisions and equitable concepts that evolved to prevent the common law from becoming the aid and counsellor of iniquity. The Doctrine has its foundation in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Sections 23 and 24 declare an agreement to be void if its subject-matter is unlawful, and Section 65 denies restitution when both parties are In Pari Delicto and similar in Section 72. The doctrine also has a broader level of application by reflecting similar and close maxims of equity, such as ex turpi causa non oritur actio (“from a dishonourable cause, an action does not arise”) and nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans (“no one shall be heard who invokes his own guilt”), paralleling the equitable “clean hands” principle.

The doctrine can be found in different provisions, such as Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), 1882; Section 33 of the Special Relief Act (SRA),1963, and can be applied in the Companies Act, 2013, as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Tort.

The courts also recognize the rule of severability by enforcing the legal parts of a contract where the unlawful component can be isolated. Furthermore, some legal frameworks such as rent control or consumer protection may override the doctrine to protect the more vulnerable parties. Ultimately, its primary structure is a matter of public policy—there is no assistance to be had in the enforcement of the contract.

Conclusion

The Rule of In Pari Delicto is said to be the application of the maxim of equity, “It will not help a party to whom the relief is connected with the illegality”. Its central aim is to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that the legal system is not used to enforce unlawful agreements or allow wrongdoers to profit from their misconduct. Courts tend to “leave the parties where they are” across jurisdictions when their claims entangle fraud, corruption, or immorality.

But strict application may produce injustice by this violence, and especially when the guilt of the latter is less. Equal treatment of the wrongdoer as wronged risks empowering the stronger wrongdoer. To solve this, contemporary courts have created exceptions when relief can be given pursuant to a determination that there is unequal fault, the illegal end has not been accomplished, or transcendent public interest demands it.

Indeed, doctrine is not only a weapon to combat illegality but a screen of doctrine that reconciles policy and justice.

References

Wednesbury Principle
SCC Online
Manupatra
Indian kanoon
Casemine
Sita Ram Vs. Radhabai And Ors, 1968, 1968 SCR (1) 805
Mohd. Salimuddin Vs. Misri Lal And Another, 1986, 1986 SCR (1) 622

Written by Abhinav Sharma, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.