The Doctrine of "Equitable Relief"
The Litigant who comes with no clean hands cannot be provided with any relief and a chance of hearing.
The phrase “no clean hands, no remedy” refers to the Doctrine of Clean Hands, which states that a party seeking equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands, meaning they must not have engaged in unethical or improper conduct related to the issue at hand. If a party is found to have “unclean hands,” the court may deny them the remedy they seek.
The clean hands doctrine is based on the maxim of equity which states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim.
It is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts.
The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on djudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.
For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.