A Petitioner while approaching the court must come with clean hands and no material facts should be suppressed.

It is a settled principle that the petitioners while filing the Writ Petitions must come to the court with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. In a recent judgment of Kerala High Court in Pottakalathil Ramakrishnan v. Thahsildar, Tirur and Ors.[ WA NO. 1513 OF 2020], the Division Bench addressed the effects of approaching the court with unclean hands. While addressing the issue, the High court considered the following Supreme Court decisions:

One of the most celebrated cases upholding the principle of clean hands is R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner [1917 (1) K.B. 486], it was observed that applicant should make full and fair disclosure of all the material facts. The court is supposed to know the law but it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.
In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India[(2007) 6 SCC 120] the Supreme court held that it is trite law that to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that it is also a trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.
The Supreme Court in the same year in Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] held that if the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of is leading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The very foundation of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
The Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 1 SCC 560], held that a writ remedy is an equitable one. Any person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It neither should suppress any material fact, but nor take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.
In K.D. Sharma v Steel Authoriy of India ltd & ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], the Supreme court held that no litigant can play “hide and seek” with the courts or adopt “pick and choose”. To hold a writ of the court one should come with candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or concealment of material facts is forbidden to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.
Further in Dalip Singh v State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114], the Supreme court observed that who come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. The post-independence period has seen drastic changes as litigants do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. To face the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
In the case of Amar Singh v Union of India and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 114], the Apex Court held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Others [(2013) 2 SCC 398], the Apex Court held that the party not approaching the court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief specifically under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation.
The High Court dismissing the writ appeal held that the honesty, fairness, purity of mind and approaching the writ court with clean hands should be of the highest order and is a sine qua non to maintain a writ petition and secure orders, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time. If the tendency of the litigant to suppress material aspects if not eradicated, the resultant quotient would be lack of faith of the citizens in the legal system and the courts of law, and if that is allowed to happen, it would ruin the basic tenets of the democratic system and the rule of law prevailing in this country.