Doctrine of In Pari Delicto: Concept, Application and Judicial Insights

The doctrine of In Pari Delicto is closely linked to the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which means "from a dishonourable cause, an action does not arise." In other words, a party engaged in an illegal or immoral transaction cannot seek the assistance of the courts to enforce such an agreement or to seek compensation for losses resulting from it.

This article explores the historical development, legal foundations, key elements, and judicial interpretations of the doctrine of In Pari Delicto, with particular reference to Indian and foreign case law, including the recent judgment by the Orissa High Court in Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Another (2025).

Meaning and Origin of the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

The Latin term In Pari Delicto means "in equal fault." The doctrine reflects the principle that a party who has willingly engaged in illegal or immoral activity should not be able to seek the court’s assistance to recover losses resulting from that activity.

The doctrine is rooted in the principle that the law should not condone or reward wrongful conduct. Courts apply this doctrine to avoid encouraging or legitimizing illegal contracts, fraudulent transactions, or immoral agreements. The key principle underlying the doctrine is that the courts will not intervene to resolve disputes between two parties who are equally at fault for violating the law or engaging in unethical conduct.

Historically, the doctrine has been traced to Roman law, where it was used to deny recovery to plaintiffs who sought to enforce illegal contracts or agreements based on fraudulent or immoral conduct. The doctrine has been recognized and applied in common law jurisdictions for centuries, and it continues to play a significant role in modern contract law and commercial transactions.

Legal Foundations of the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

The doctrine of In Pari Delicto is grounded in two fundamental legal principles:

1. Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio – This maxim means that no action can arise from an immoral or illegal cause. If a contract or agreement is based on an illegal or immoral act, the courts will not enforce it.
2. Nemo Auditur Propriam Turpitudinem Allegans – This principle means that no one can be heard to allege their wrongdoing as the basis for seeking legal relief.

In Indian contract law, the doctrine finds its foundation in Section 23 and Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provide that an agreement is void if its object or consideration is unlawful, immoral, or opposed to public policy. Similarly, Section 65 of the Contract Act prevents restitution when both parties are equally guilty of an illegal or immoral act.

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if:

• It is forbidden by law;
• It defeats the provisions of any law;
• It is fraudulent;
• It involves or implies injury to a person or property;
• It is immoral or opposed to public policy.

Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it or compensate the other party for the same. However, restitution is not allowed when both parties are equally guilty under the doctrine of In Pari Delicto.

Judicial Interpretations of the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

The doctrine of In Pari Delicto has been applied in various judgments by Indian and foreign courts. The courts have consistently maintained that they will not enforce illegal or immoral agreements or assist parties in recovering benefits obtained through such agreements.

Indian Case Laws

(a) Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Another (2025) – Orissa High Court

In this case, the Orissa High Court quashed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque was issued to discharge an immoral debt. The petitioner’s son had allegedly promised to secure a medical seat in exchange for money, but he failed to deliver on the promise. The court held that the underlying transaction was immoral and unenforceable, applying the doctrine of In Pari Delicto.

The court observed:

"The complainant, being a party to the illegal transaction, cannot encash from her own guilt. Ambitious parents indulging in illegal methods to secure admission of their wards to a good college at the cost of meritocracy and fairness in education is indeed a crime."

The judgment reinforces the principle that the court will not lend its aid to a party seeking to recover an immoral or illegal debt.

(b) N.V.P Pandian v. M.M. Roy (AIR 1979 MAD 42) – Madras High Court

In this case, the Madras High Court held that money paid to secure a medical seat under an illegal agreement was not recoverable. The court ruled that the agreement was opposed to public policy and, therefore, void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

(c) Virender Singh v. Laxmi Narain & Ors. (2007 CRILJ 2262) – Delhi High Court

In this case, the Delhi High Court held that when both parties are involved in illegal or immoral conduct, the court will not enforce the agreement. The principle of In Pari Delicto bars recovery in such cases.

(d) R. Parimala Bai v. Bhaskar Narasimhaiah (2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3989) – Karnataka High Court

The court ruled that when money is paid to secure a job illegally, it amounts to an immoral debt that is not enforceable under the law. The court applied the doctrine of In Pari Delicto to reject the claim for repayment.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto

While the doctrine applies in most cases involving illegal or immoral transactions, there are certain exceptions where the courts have allowed recovery despite the illegality:

• Lack of equal guilt – If one party is less guilty or was misled into the agreement, the doctrine may not apply.
• Public interest – If enforcing the contract serves a greater public interest, the court may overlook the illegality.
• Unjust enrichment – If applying the doctrine would result in unjust enrichment of one party, the court may intervene.

Conclusion

The doctrine of In Pari Delicto serves as a vital check on illegal and immoral transactions by ensuring that parties involved in such conduct do not benefit from judicial intervention. Indian courts have consistently upheld this doctrine to preserve public policy and discourage unlawful agreements. The recent decision in Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha further reinforces the significance of this doctrine in protecting the integrity of the legal system.