On today’s show, we will talk about the case of Adani Gas Limited v. Union of India and Others, SLP (C) Nos. 28192-28193 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia discussed the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate.
On today’s show, we will talk about the case of Adani Gas Limited v. Union of India and Others, SLP (C) Nos. 28192-28193 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia discussed the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate.
To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/09/approbate-reprobate-estoppel-election-meaning-doctrine.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
Welcome to Legal Talks by Desi Kanoon.
I am Suyash and on today’s show, we will talk about the case of Adani Gas Limited v. Union of India and Others, SLP (C) Nos. 28192-28193 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia discussed the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate.
But before adverting any further, let us understand the plain meaning of the terms ‘approbate’ and ‘reprobate’. ‘Approbate’ literally means to approve formally or rectify or confirm. Reprobation has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, as “the act of raising an objection or exception.”
Further, the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate stems from the Latin Maxim “qui non improbat approbat” that means “a person who does not disapprove approves.”
The facts of the case are not relevant for the purposes of this show and hence the same are not being discussed here. However, briefly speaking, the context in the present case was that Adani was granted approval or authorization under a law to carry out a work relating to Gas Distribution Networks. Even though such approval or authorization excluded Adani from performing certain other works, Adani accepted the grant of approval or authorization and started performing the authorized works. Later on, feeling aggrieved by exclusion of approval of certain other works, Adani contended before the Court that grant of authorization or approval under the concerned law is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of its parent law. It is in this light that the Hon’ble Court invoked the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate to explain that one cannot breathe hot and cold at the same time. Once grant of approval or authorization has been accepted by Adani, then later on, it cannot contend that such grant of approval or authorization is unconstitutional. In order to understand the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.
Firstly, the Court noted that the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate is “one which does not permit a litigant to take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands.”
Secondly, the Court elaborated that “an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions.”
Thirdly, the Court traced the judicial origins of the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate by citing the case of Codrington v Codrington, 1875 LR 7 HL at 866, wherein it was observed that “he who accepts a benefit under an instrument must adopt the whole of it, confirming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.”
Fourthly, the Court further noted that “a man cannot adopt two inconsistent attitudes towards another: he must elect between them and, having elected to adopt one stance, cannot thereafter be permitted to go back and adopt an inconsistent stance.”
Fifthly, the Court observed that “the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is based on the principle of estoppel” and an order cannot be partly good and partly bad like the curate's egg.”
Sixthly, the Court also connected the Doctrine of Election and the Rule of Estoppel by noting that such principles and doctrines inhere the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate as “taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory” and “the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily.”
And lastly, in conclusion, the Court discussed the basic principles of the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate as: -
a. “The approbating party must have elected, that is made his choice, clearly and unequivocally.”
b. “It is usual but not necessary for the electing party to have taken a benefit from his election.”
c. “The electing party's subsequent conduct must be inconsistent with his earlier election or approbation.”
d. In essence, the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate is “about preventing inconsistent conduct and ensuring a just outcome.”
Thus, I hope that the meaning and the nature of the Doctrine of Approbate-Reprobate is clear by now.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like and subscribe us.
And if you have any comments, please make them in the comments section.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.