in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis
The maxim stops a party to an illegal agreement from getting the court's help to recover money or property he parted with under it. If both are equally guilty, the court leaves the loss where it lies. Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act make agreements with an unlawful object or consideration void, and courts refuse restitution where the plaintiff knowingly joined in the illegality. In Immani Appa Rao (1961) the Supreme Court applied the principle to a sham transfer made to defeat creditors.
The rule has exceptions: where the parties are not equally at fault, as when the plaintiff was defrauded, oppressed or belongs to the class a statute protects; and where the plaintiff withdraws before the illegal purpose is carried out (locus poenitentiae). It is closely related to ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
Example
A person who paid a bribe to secure a government job cannot sue to recover it when the job is not given: in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.
In Indian law
- Sections 23, 24 and 65, Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Immani Appa Rao v. Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi, 1961 INSC 274
See also
ex turpi causa non oritur actio · locus poenitentiae · void agreement · clean hands
Read more in the study notes
- Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats (Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems)