Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The petitioners have not produced any material documents to establish their residential proof in the address furnished along with the writ petitions with verifying affidavit. This clearly indicates that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. It is expected that every citizen, who approach the Court seeking justice should be fair to the Court. When they are not fair, it amounts to abuse of process of Court and contempt of Court. It is well settled that the person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The petitioners have unnecessarily dragged the Tahsildar, Municipal Commissioner and the Councilor before this Court, wasting their public time. The conduct and attitude of the petitioners in manner to cause colossal insult to justice and are against the majesty of law which cannot be encouraged in order to see that democratic values enshrined in the Constitution are respected and faith of people in the judicial institutional system is not lost.

32.1 Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'.

Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.

32.2 The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. 32.3 The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.

36. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-

suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to an abuse of process of court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to an abuse of process of court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". (Refer : Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430];

Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995)1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].

37. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands.