Doctrine of Laches

Introduction and Definition

Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘laches’ as:

“[French: remissness; slackness] 1. Unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim – always an equitable one – in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought – Also termed ‘sleeping on rights’

            “Early in its history, Chancery developed the doctrine that where the plaintiff in equity delayed beyond the period of the statute applicable at law, relief would be refused on the ground of laches even though no specific prejudice to the defendant was shown. Today, in most states, there are statutes of limitations applying to suits inequity. Despite these, however, the doctrine still holds that even if the delay is for a shorter period of time than that of the statute, it may still bar equitable relief if it is unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant.” John F. O’Connell, Remedies in a Nutshell..”

The abovementioned definition is quite a comprehensive one. It explains the general meaning of ‘laches’. The real difference between laches and limitation is ground of reasonableness. This aspect shall be explained later on in this post as to the difference between laches, limitation and delay. Apart from the time limit set in the Limitation Act of 1963, our Courts have held that laches and delay are an important factor to be considered in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court on the Doctrine of Laches

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr., Appeal (Civil) 4790 of 2006, has beautifully explained the concept of 'laches'. Many of the case laws cited in this post have also been cited in U.P. Jal Nigam. For the sake of brevity, the facts of U.P. Jal Nigam shall not be reiterated here. Moving further, inRupDiamonds v. UnionofIndia, (1989) 2 SCC 356, it was observed that those people who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the matter to the court cannot be given the benefit. Thus when there is an unexplained and inordinate delay, then such a delay may be sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere.  In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya,(1996) 6 SCC 267, it was said that if any explanation for condonation of delay is given by the litigant, then the Court must satisfy itself that the explanation given is proper. Similar observations were also given in cases like Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta, (1997) 3 SCC 395 etc.

Halsbury’s Laws of England

‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ has explained ‘laches’ as:

“In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:

(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and

(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.

Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.”

Thus we see that ‘laches’ is lack of diligence on the part of a litigant in making a claim or seeking to enforce a legal right. The unreasonable delay in this respect can be treated to be prejudicial to the opposing party.

Difference between Laches and Limitation

‘Laches’ and the limitation period under the Limitation Act may seem similar or alike since both of them seek to ensure that the Litigants bring their claims in a time-bound manner. However, ‘laches’ and limitation are two completely different principles. On the one hand, Limitation Act is merely concerned with the time that has passed i.e. the delay and on the other hand, ‘laches’ is not only concerned with the time that has passed i.e. delay but is also concerned with the reasonableness of that delay. Thus ‘laches’ hits directly at the equitable conduct of the Litigant seeking to enforce his right or claim. We see that there are three components of ‘laches’:

1. A delay in bringing the action.

2. Unreasonableness of delay must exist.

3. The delay must be prejudicial to the Opposing Party.

When Limitation Begins?

As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period is liable to be dismissed. However, it is not necessary that the period for ‘laches’ must coincide with that of the Limitation. ‘laches’ is a matter of equity and must be dealt with as such. Depending upon facts and circumstances, there might be cases where even though the Limitation Period has not ended, the Litigant may be denied relief if the delay is of such a nature which is prejudicial to the rights of the Defendant and is totally unreasonable. E.g. the Claim is sought to be enforced by the Claimant after the witnesses favourable to the Defendant have died or lost their memories.

Conclusion

Doctrine of Laches has existed since a long time yet it has not lost its relevance. We see that Delay, Laches, Limitation and Acquiescence are overlapping but not inter-changeable terms. The difference between these terms is thin and technical in nature. In our country, Limitation Act is the norm yet laches must not be ignored. In Courts of Writ Jurisdiction like High Courts and the Supreme Court, Limitation Act has limited applicability. ‘Laches’ is a potent tool in the hands of such Courts to prevent the Litigants from abusing the process of the Court and prevent any right accruing in favour of the Claimant that is prejudicial to the rights of the Defendant.