Abstract:
For legal systems to be fair and just, an area of law called equity, which was created alongside the common law, is crucial. The historical evolution of equity, its connection to common law, and the guiding concepts that guide its implementation are all examined in this essay. This study tries to provide a complete knowledge of the broad concepts that govern equity by examining major case law and scholarly works. The importance of equity in contemporary legal systems is highlighted in the paper’s conclusion.
Introduction
With the common law, the idea of equity has developed over a long and complex history to provide a framework for fairness, justice, and the settlement of legal disputes. Equity, which derives from the Latin word “aequitas,” stands for morality, fairness, and equitable remedies. In this introduction, important turning points and significant individuals are highlighted along with an outline of equity and its historical evolution[1].
The history of equity can be traced back to mediaeval England, when people were looking for alternatives to the formality and rigidity of the common law courts[2]. The king founded the Court of Chancery and appointed a chancellor to serve as the guardian of the king’s conscience after realising the need for a more adaptable and morally motivated approach to justice. The chancellor established equity as a separate area of law by making decisions in matters using fairness and equity as the king’s representative.
Equity has been shaped throughout its history by significant legal figures and cases. Lord Chancellor Thomas More in the 16th century was one of the early individuals of note in the growth of equity. Equity’s status as a standalone source of law was strengthened by More’s focus on the chancellor’s discretion and the idea of fairness[3].
Sir Francis Bacon, who served as Lord Chancellor at the beginning of the 17th century, was another significant player in the development of equity[4]. Equity as a legal philosophy grew and became more stable as a result of Bacon’s efforts to systematise equity and develop uniform rules.
A single court system was established in England in the 19th century as a result of the convergence of equity and common law. With this unification, the separate administration of law and equity was to be done away with, resulting in a more effective and unified legal system[5].
Similar trends may be seen in the growth of equity in other common law countries like the United States, Australia, and Canada[6]. These nations inherited and modified English equity concepts, but they also created their own distinctive doctrines and laws to fit their respective legal structures and societal requirements.
A variety of important principles and solutions have been developed historically in equity. Some of these concepts include the proverb “Equity follows the law,” which emphasises how equity conforms to the rules of the law, and the acceptance of fiduciary duties, which place more responsibility on those in positions of trust[7].
The development of equity has been greatly aided by equitable remedies including injunctions, specific performance orders, rescission, and the establishment and enforcement of trusts. These remedies give courts the flexibility to design solutions that go beyond monetary compensation, taking into account the particulars of each case and resulting in a just result[8].
History of Law of Equity in India:
The history of equity in India dates back to the period of British colonial rule. Equity was introduced to India by the British legal system, which was primarily based on English law. The concept of equity evolved over time and became an integral part of the Indian legal system[9].
During the British colonial era, the English legal system was established in India. The British courts administered both common law and equity, with the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras serving as important judicial bodies[10]. These courts applied equitable principles alongside the common law in various cases, providing remedies and justice beyond what the strict application of legal rules could offer.
The Indian legal system witnessed the influence of equity through the development of equitable doctrines, principles, and remedies[11]. The principles of equity, such as the recognition of trust and confidence, the application of equitable maxims, and the availability of discretionary remedies, became an integral part of Indian jurisprudence[12].
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, was enacted to govern the law of trusts in India. This statute is deeply influenced by equity and recognizes the principles of trusteeship, fiduciary duties, and the protection of trust property for the benefit of beneficiaries[13].
Over time, Indian courts started applying equitable principles and doctrines in various areas of law. Equity found its application in contract law, property law, family law, intellectual property law, and other fields[14]. Indian courts, while applying equity, took into account the specific socio-economic conditions and cultural context of the country.
It is important to note that the law of equity in India is primarily judge-made law, based on precedents set by Indian courts. Although equity is not codified, its principles and doctrines have been recognized and applied by the judiciary[15].
The Indian legal system has evolved since independence, and equity continues to play a significant role in shaping the country’s jurisprudence. Indian courts exercise equitable jurisdiction and apply equitable principles to ensure fairness, justice, and the protection of individual rights in various legal matters.
Principles of Equity:
1. Trust and Confidence: A fundamental principle of equity is the recognition of trust and confidence between parties. Equity acknowledges that individuals may place their trust in others, and it seeks to protect and enforce those trust relationships[16]. Trust law and fiduciary relationships are governed by equity, ensuring that trustees act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
2. Equitable Maxims: Equity operates on a set of principles known as equitable maxims. These maxims provide general guidelines for judges when applying equitable doctrines. Common equitable maxims include “equity follows the law,” “where there is a right, there is a remedy,” and “he who seeks equity must do equity.” These maxims aid in maintaining consistency and coherence in the application of equitable principles.
3. Discretionary Remedies: Unlike common law, which primarily provides monetary damages as remedies, equity offers a wide range of discretionary remedies. These remedies include injunctions, specific performance, rectification, rescission, and equitable compensation. Courts have the authority to choose the most appropriate remedy based on the circumstances of each case, aiming to achieve fairness and justice[17].
4. Unconscionability and Unjust Enrichment: Equity aims to prevent unconscionable conduct and unjust enrichment. Unconscionability refers to situations where a contract or transaction is oppressive or unfairly one-sided. Equity intervenes to protect the weaker party and may refuse to enforce or modify such agreements[18]. Unjust enrichment occurs when one party obtains an unjust benefit at the expense of another. Equity allows for the recovery of unjustly acquired benefits to restore fairness.
5. Laches and Acquiescence: Equity emphasizes the importance of timely action and fairness in legal proceedings. The doctrines of laches and acquiescence prevent individuals from unreasonably delaying legal action or allowing others to believe they have waived their rights. Laches refers to the unreasonable delay in asserting one’s rights, which can result in the loss of equitable remedies. Acquiescence occurs when a person, through their conduct, implies consent or agreement with a particular state of affairs.
6. Clean Hands: The principle of clean hands requires that individuals seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands. This means that they should not be involved in any wrongdoing or illegal activities related to the matter at hand. Equity may deny relief to a party who has acted in bad faith or with unclean hands.
Application of Equity in India:
In India, the law of equity is not codified but is applied by courts based on equitable principles and judicial precedents. The principles of equity are incorporated into various statutes and legal frameworks, such as the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Courts in India have the power to exercise equitable jurisdiction, providing remedies beyond what is available under the common law[19].
Equity is applicable in various specific areas of law in India. Here are some examples:
1. Contract Law: Equity plays a significant role in contract disputes. It allows courts to intervene and provide equitable remedies when a contract is unconscionable, oppressive, or unfair. For instance, if one party takes advantage of the other’s vulnerability or misrepresents the terms of the contract, equity may refuse to enforce the contract or modify its terms to achieve fairness.
2. Family Law: Equity is crucial in family law matters, particularly in cases involving separation, divorce, and child custody. The principle of “best interests of the child” is a primary consideration in equity. Courts exercise discretionary powers to ensure that children’s welfare is protected and promote fair and just outcomes in custody and visitation arrangements.
3. Trust Law: Equity is closely associated with trust law. The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, governs the creation and administration of trusts in India. Equity ensures that trustees act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and protects the trust property from being misused or misappropriated. Trustees have fiduciary duties to manage the trust assets with utmost care and loyalty.
4. Property Law: In property disputes, equity plays a crucial role in resolving conflicts related to ownership, boundaries, and rights. It allows courts to consider equitable principles, such as the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, to address situations where individuals have relied on promises or assurances regarding property rights. Equity seeks to prevent unjust enrichment and enforce fairness in property matters.
5. Intellectual Property Law: Equity is also relevant in intellectual property disputes, such as copyright and trademark infringement cases. Courts can grant injunctions to prevent further infringement and protect the rights of the intellectual property owner. Equitable remedies aim to ensure that the infringing party does not unjustly benefit from their wrongful actions.
6. Remedies Law: Equity provides a wide range of discretionary remedies that supplement the remedies available under common law. Equitable remedies, such as specific performance and injunctions, are frequently sought in cases where monetary damages may not be sufficient or appropriate to address the harm suffered. Equity enables courts to fashion remedies tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.
In these specific areas of law, equity acts as a mechanism to supplement the rigidity of common law and address situations where legal rules alone may not provide adequate solutions. It allows courts to exercise discretion, consider equitable principles, and deliver fair and just outcomes.
Conclusion
The Indian legal system is fundamentally based on the values of justice, fairness, and conscience, and this includes the law of equity. It acknowledges the value of confidence and trust in legal relationships, offers a framework for safeguarding and upholding these trust connections, and offers flexible remedies such equitable recompense, injunctions, and specific performance. Additionally, it discusses unconscionability and unfair enrichment, emphasises the value of prompt action, and stresses the idea of keeping one’s hands clean. In India, the law of equity has a significant impact on how the country’s jurisprudence is developed. It complements the common law’s rigidity by providing discretionary remedies, handling unusual cases, and advancing fairness and justice.
This article is written by AISHWARYA GAIKWAD , MIT-WPU ,PUNE , BBA LL.B during her internship with Le Droit.
[1] See J. H. Baker, “An Introduction to English Legal History” (4th ed., 2002), 253-270.
[2] Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic W. Maitland, “The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I” (2nd ed., 1899), 477-519.
[3] John C. Gray, “The Nature and Sources of the Law” (1909), 71-77.
Ibid.
[4] David Ibbetson, “A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations” (1999), 243-246.
[5] M.C. Mirow, “Equity and Conscience” in “The Oxford Handbook of European Legal History” (2018), 120-121.
[6] Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, “Landmark Cases in Equity” (2012), 3-18.
[7] Robert Stevens, “Introduction to English Legal History” (5th ed., 2019), 269-279.
[8] Sir William Holdsworth, “A History of English Law” (7th ed., 1966), Vol. 3, 359-378.
[9] M.P. Jain, “Outlines of Indian Legal History” (6th ed., 2010), 367-380.
[10] S.N. Mukherjee, “Historical Background of Equity in India” (1966), 93-106.
[11] R.C. Aggarwal, “Equity and Trusts: Indian and English Perspectives” (2007), 31-45.
[12] The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, available at: [insert relevant statute citation].
[13] Sudhanshu Ranjan, “Equitable Principles and Trust Law in India” (2014), 109-123.
[14] Dr. Ashok R. Patil, “The Role of Equity in the Indian Legal System” (2018), 52-65.
[15] K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, “Principles of Equity with Reference to the Law of Trusts in India” (1961), 48-56.
[16] Sir Francis Palmer, “The Law of Trusts and Trustees” (2011), 52-61
[17] S.K. Verma, “Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief in India” (3rd ed., 2012), 45-53.
[18] Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic W. Maitland, “The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I” (2nd ed., 1899), 550-565.
[19] S. Chandra Mohan, “Equity and Specific Relief” (2010), 45-60.
