The doctrine of laches is based on the Latin maxim "Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" which means that the law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights. Thus, it is settled law that those who are careless in filing a suit/writ/review/recall/revision within the mandated time, the same shall not be maintainable and no relief would be granted to the plaintiff/applicant/petitioner on this preliminary ground itself.

This Doctrine is based with a view to provide finality to proceedings and for curbing unwanted inflow/filing of cases. The doctrine of laches is applied by the courts in dealing with an inordinate delay in filing a petition/plaint/appeal or complaint.

The development of this doctrine over the years has nevertheless paved the way for a mechanism that has rewarded people who are vigilant with regard to their rights while penalising those who cause an unwarranted delay.

The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle rooted in the idea that "equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights." It essentially bars a claimant from seeking legal relief if they have unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights and such delay has caused prejudice to the opposing party.

This Doctrine can be resorted to only when there is unreasonable delay in bringing a redressal before the appropriate forum due to negligence/lethargy of the Plaintiff/ Appellant/Petitioner, who inspite of due knowledge, does not file appropriate redressal within the mandated time.

The Doctrine can be elucidated by an example. A & B are brothers and their father bequeathed his property in favour of A. After the death of the father, both A & B continued to enjoy the moveable & immovable properties of the father for a considerable period of 15 years although A had full knowledge of the Will. After 15 years A files a suit against B. The said suit is barred by the Doctrine of Laches.

The Doctrine of Laches is an equitable principle in Indian law, whereby courts can deny relief to a party if they have unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights, especially if this delay is likely to prejudice the opposite party. The Apex Court has elaborated on this doctrine through various judgments, underlining that while equity aids the vigilant, it does not support those who sleep on their rights.

It is trite to refer to Northern Indian Glass Industries vs Jaswant Singh And Ors 2003 (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court considered the said Doctrine. In the said case the erstwhile land owners had filed writ petition after 17 years of the finalization of the acquisition proceedings. Declining relief, the Court observed thus:

Looking to the facts of the present case and conduct of the respondents 1-5, the High Court was not at all justified in ignoring the delay and laches and granting relief to them. As already noticed, the respondent 1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Section 4 and 6.

Having sought for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches, in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired."

It is relevant to refer to Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs.Jain School Society 2003 (12) SCC 538 wherein the Apex Court held that the writ petition filed after 17 years of issue of the order was beyond reasonable & justifiable delay and the doctrine of laches applied with full force & observed thus:

In our view, this reasoning is entirely unsustainable and erroneous. The Respondents did not need to wait 22 years to see that nothing was being done to utilize the land. The High Court was entirely in error in stating that the Respondents could not be accused of any delay and that the delay in fact showed the bonafides of the Respondents.

It would be apropos to refer to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Aflatoon & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077, wherein dealing with the issue, the Court observed thus:-

".... to have sat on the fence and allowed the government to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on the grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published, would be putting a premium of dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner."

It would be appropriate to refer to the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 482 wherein the Apex Court considered the Doctrine of Laches & observed thus:

"If the interested person allows the grass to grow under his feet by allowing the acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its terminus in the award and possession is taken in furtherance thereof and vest in the State free from all encumbrances, the slumbered interested person would be told off the gates of the Court that his grievance should not be entertained when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445 went further to hold that even the void proceedings need not be set at naught if the party has not approached the Court within reasonable time, as judicial review is not permissible at a belated stage. This Court held thus:

"......Delay in challenging the notification was fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on grounds of laches. It is thus, well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications........The order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does not confer any right. But the action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events.

Though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void. The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in such circumstances."

It would be appropriate to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. Etc. AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1496, wherein the Court observed thus:
343. In matters of land acquisition, this Court has frowned upon, and cautioned courts about delays and held that delay is fatal in questioning the land acquisition proceedings. In case possession has not been taken in accordance with law and vesting is not in accordance with Section 16, proceedings before courts are to be initiated within reasonable time, not after the lapse of several decades.

The Court concluded that the Doctrine of laches does not permit an indolent party to reagitate matters.

The Court observed thus:
The landowners had urged that since the Act of 2013 creates new situations, which are beneficial to their interests, the question of delay or laches does not arise. This Court is of the opinion that the said contention is without merits. As held earlier, the doctrine of laches would always preclude an indolent party, who chooses not to approach the court, or having approached the court, allows an adverse decision to become final, to re-agitate the issue of acquisition of his holding.

Apex Court in U.P. State Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr 2006 (11) SCC 464 has observed that if a claimant is aware of the violation of his rights and does not claim his remedies, such inaction or conduct tantamounts a waiver of the right & the doctrine of laches apply in such cases. The Court observed thus:

The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years.

It is not in dispute as who sleeps over their rights or is aware of their rights but didn't take action within a reasonable period is hit by the doctrine of laches. Reference to the case of M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 356 would be fruitful wherein the Apex Court observed that those people who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the matter to the court for refund of duty, cannot be given the benefit. The Court held thus:

" Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void.

There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after a year after the first rejection. As observed by the Court in Durga Prashad case, the exchange position of this country and the policy of the government regarding international trade varies from year to year.

In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners' case in any such appeal."

It would be germane to refer to Gian Singh Mann vs The High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1894.

In the said case, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners eleven years after the date from which they claimed promotions.The petitioners argued that during these intervening years they were busy making representations before different authorities regarding their grievances. The Apex Court rejected their contentions on the Doctrine of laches as there were no valid reasons for justifying the delay of eleven years. The Court observed thus:

'In regard to the petitioner's claim for promotion to the Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from 1st November, 1966, and to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st May, 1967 on the basis that a post had been reserved in each of the services for a member of the Scheduled Castes, it seems to us that the claim is grossly belated. The writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978, about eleven years after the dates from which the promotions are claimed. There is no valid explanation for the delay. That the petitioner was making successive representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking the inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on that ground."

It would be noteworthy that a 3 member Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors., AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 329, the Apex Court held that when a party has slept on their rights, the doctrine of laches applies, and they cannot claim relief after unreasonable delay. The Court observed thus:

" It is well-established that the writ of certiorari will not be granted in a case where there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party. The principle is to a great extent, similar to though not identical with the exercise of discretion in the Court of Chancery. The principle has been clearly stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd. Abram Farewall, and John Kemp (1874) 5 PC 221 at p 239 as follows:

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.

But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."

This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent case —Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R Mehar, President, Industrial court, BombayAIR 1967 SC 1450. In our opinion, the principle of this decision applies to the present case and since Respondent 1 and the other private operators had not even pleaded any circumstances justifying the delay or their conduct, the High Court was in error in granting a writ of certiorari in their favour."

It would be fitting to refer to the Apex Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 SCC (4) 683 wherein the party seeking relief had delayed the claim by almost 20 years related to property rights. The Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating that a plaintiff cannot claim a right to property after an undue delay without just & reasonable cause. The Court observed thus:

"How a person who alleges against the State of deprivation of his legal right, can get relief of compensation from the State by invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution even though, he is guilty of laches or undue delay is difficult to comprehend, when it is well settled by decisions of this Court that no person, be he a citizen or otherwise, is entitled to obtain the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution if his conduct is blame-worthy because of laches, undue delay, acquiescence, waiver and the like.

Moreover, how a citizen claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against a State, could be relieved of his obligation to establish his unblameworthy conduct for getting such relief, where the State against which relief is sought is a welfare State, is also difficult to comprehend. Where the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person against the welfare State is founded on its alleged illegal or wrongful executive action, the need to explain laches or undue delay on his part to obtain such relief, should, if anything, be more stringent than in other cases, for the reason that the State due to laches or undue delay on the part of the person seeking relief, may not be able to show that the executive action complained of was legal or correct for want of records pertaining to the action or for the officers who were responsible for such action not being available later on.

Further, where granting of relief is claimed against the State on alleged unwarranted executive action, is bound to result in loss to the public exchequer of the State or in damage to other public interest, the High Court before granting such relief is required to satisfy itself that the delay or laches on the part of a citizen or any other person in approaching for relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution on the alleged violation of his legal right, was wholly justified in the facts and circumstances, instead of ignoring the same or leniently considering it. Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief.

Therefore, where a High Court grants relief to a citizen or any other person under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blame-worthy conduct, such as laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State."

The Apex Court has consistently upheld that the Doctrine of Laches serves to prevent claims that are old and stale, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to act promptly when asserting their rights.The doctrine of laches is an important legal concept aimed at preventing unfairness that may result from undue delays in pursuing legal action. Courts use this principle to promote fairness and prevent legal actions that could result in unjust outcomes due to unnecessary delays. Each case is judged based on its specific facts, and the court has discretion in determining whether laches applies.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]