The Analysis of Estoppel and Its Application in Civil and

Criminal Matters

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of the degree
of
BBALLB (Hons.)

by

AKASH SNEHAJAN

221305027

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY
JAIPUR JAIPUR-303007
RAJASTHAN, INDIA

APRIL 2025
 DEPARTMENT OF (NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT)
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR, JAIPUR – 303 007 (RAJASTHAN), INDIA

Date

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled The Analysis of Estoppel and Its Application
in Civil and Criminal Matters is a record of the bonafide work done by AKASH
SNEHAJAN (221305027) submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the BALLB(Hons.) in School Of Law of Manipal University Jaipur,
during the academic year 2024-25.

PROF.ARPIT TOTUKA
Project Guide, Dept of LAW
Manipal University Jaipur

DR.SONU AGGARWAL
HOD, Dept of LAW
Manipal University Jaipur
 Date

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled PROJECT TITLE was carried out by
STUDENT NAME (Reg. No.) at COMPANY NAME, CITY NAME under my
guidance during Starting Month, 2022 to Ending Month 2022.

Supervisor Name
Designation,
Organisation Name, City
Abstract
The doctrine of estoppel serves as a crucial equitable principle in Indian jurisprudence, preventing parties from
resiling from their previous statements or conduct when others have relied upon them to their detriment. This paper
examines the conceptual foundations of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1(now Section 121
of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) and its differential application in civil and criminal proceedings. Through an
analysis of landmark judgments, the study highlights how courts have employed estoppel to ensure fairness in
contractual and property disputes while limiting its scope in criminal matters to protect accused rights. The paper
concludes by evaluating the doctrine's evolving role and suggesting reforms for more consistent application across
legal domains.

Introduction
Estoppel represents one of equity's most significant contributions to modern legal systems, embodying the principle
that no person should benefit from their own contradictory positions. In the Indian context, this doctrine finds
statutory recognition in Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which prohibits parties from
denying their earlier representations when others have acted in reliance upon them. The doctrine manifests in
various forms - promissory estoppel in contractual matters, proprietary estoppel in property disputes, and issue
estoppel in litigation. While civil courts have expansively applied estoppel to prevent injustice, criminal
jurisprudence has adopted a more cautious approach due to fundamental protections for the accused. This paper
systematically examines estoppel's theoretical foundations, its practical application across civil and criminal cases,
and the emerging judicial trends that shape its contemporary relevance.

Conceptual Foundation of Estoppel

The doctrine of estoppel rests on foundational principles of equity and justice that transcend its technical legal
formulation. Estoppel by representation is a shield against inconsistency, ensuring that the truth prevails where
reliance has been placed on a representation.2
At its philosophical core, estoppel represents the legal system's recognition that consistency in human affairs forms
the bedrock of a just society. The principle finds expression in the Latin maxim "allegans contraria non est
audiendus" (one who alleges contradictory positions should not be heard), which captures the essential moral
imperative underlying estoppel - that no person should benefit from their own duplicity or inconsistency to the
detriment of others.
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) provides the statutory framework for estoppel in Indian
law, stipulating that when one person intentionally causes another to believe a fact to be true and induces them to
act upon that belief, the representor cannot subsequently deny the truth of that fact in legal proceedings. This
formulation contains three essential elements that courts have consistently emphasized: first, there must be a clear
and unambiguous representation (which may be through words, conduct, or even silence in circumstances where
there was a duty to speak); second, the other party must have actually relied on this representation; and third, such
reliance must have resulted in a change of position that would render it unjust or inequitable to permit the
representor to resile from their earlier position.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has significantly expanded upon these basic elements. In Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), the Court established that estoppel operates not merely as a
rule of evidence but can create substantive rights, particularly in cases involving governmental assurances. The
judgment emphasized that equity demands holding parties to their representations when others have acted in
legitimate reliance, even in the absence of formal contractual relations. This principle was further refined in Union
of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies (1968), where the Court held that the government stands on the same footing as
private parties when it comes to estoppel, though with certain qualifications relating to overriding public interest.
However, the application of estoppel is not without limitations. The Supreme Court in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State
of Haryana (1980) clarified that estoppel cannot override statutory obligations or legitimate government functions.
This limitation reflects the delicate balance courts must strike between enforcing fair dealing and respecting
legislative supremacy. Similarly, in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India (1999), the Court reiterated that
no estoppel can operate against the exercise of statutory powers or compel the performance of an illegal act. These
1
Law of Evidence - Chapter 8 - Estoppel, http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Evidence/chapter8.htm (last visited Apr 8,
2025).
2
Bhumika Indulia, Doctrine of Estoppel: Understanding Estoppel: Maxims, Legal Principles, and Statutory Provisions, SCC TIMES (Nov.
12, 2024), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/11/12/doctrine-of-estoppel-understanding-estoppel-maxims-legal-principles-and-
statutory-provisions/ (last visited Apr 8, 2025).
boundaries demonstrate how estoppel operates within a broader legal ecosystem, complementing but not
supplanting other legal principles.
The theoretical underpinnings of estoppel reveal its dual nature as both a shield and a sword in legal proceedings.
As a shield, it protects relying parties from the harm caused by another's inconsistent positions. As a sword, it
enables courts to enforce equitable outcomes where strict legal rules might produce injustice. This dual character is
particularly evident in proprietary estoppel cases, where courts have used the doctrine to recognize and enforce
informal property arrangements. The Delhi High Court's decision in Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad v. New
Delhi Municipal Committee (1993)3 illustrates this well, where longstanding possession based on official
assurances was protected against subsequent denials.
The evolution of estoppel doctrine in India also reflects changing societal norms and economic realities. The
expansion of promissory estoppel to cover government contracts and policies mirrors the growing interface
between citizens and the state in developmental activities. Similarly, the recognition of estoppel in family
arrangements, as seen in S. Rajan v. State of Kerala 4(1992), acknowledges the importance of informal
understandings in Indian social relations. These developments show how estoppel has adapted to serve as a bridge
between formal legal structures and the complex realities of human interaction.
Contemporary challenges to estoppel principles have emerged in areas like electronic communications and digital
transactions, where representations may be more ambiguous and reliance more difficult to establish. The judiciary's
response to these challenges will likely shape the next phase of estoppel's evolution, potentially requiring
modifications to traditional formulations while maintaining the doctrine's core equitable purpose. The increasing
complexity of commercial transactions and governmental operations suggests that estoppel will continue to play a
vital role in ensuring fairness and consistency in legal relations, even as its application adapts to new contexts and
technologies.
Estoppel in Civil Matters
The civil justice system has proven particularly receptive to estoppel claims, employing the doctrine as a flexible
instrument for achieving equitable outcomes across diverse legal contexts. In contractual and commercial disputes,
promissory estoppel has emerged as a powerful tool for enforcing fairness when strict contract law principles might
produce unjust results. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (1968)
established the modern foundation for this application, holding that the government could not resile from its export
incentive policy after traders had acted in reliance upon it. This principle was significantly expanded in Motilal
Padampat Sugar Mills (1979), where the Court enforced a tax exemption promise against the Uttar Pradesh
government, emphasizing that equitable considerations could create binding obligations even absent formal
contractual requirements.
The evolution of promissory estoppel in government contract cases reveals important nuances in its application.
While initially applied vigorously to hold governments to their promises, subsequent decisions like Jit Ram Shiv
Kumar (1980) and Punjab Communications (1999) established that public interest considerations could override
estoppel claims. This balancing approach reflects the courts' recognition that while fairness to individuals remains
paramount, it cannot completely constrain the government's capacity to act in the broader public interest. The Delhi
High Court's decision in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2014) illustrates this balance in
operation, where estoppel was enforced against a government agency except where it conflicted with statutory
housing policies.
Proprietary estoppel has similarly transformed property law in India, particularly in cases involving informal family
arrangements and long-term possession. The Supreme Court's judgment in Gujarat State Financial Corporation v.
Lotus Hotels (1983) demonstrated how equitable principles could override strict property formalities, enforcing an
agreement based on substantial reliance. This approach has been particularly significant in joint family and
inheritance disputes, where courts have recognized property rights arising from longstanding conduct and
representations. The Kerala High Court's decision in S. Rajan (1992) protected a son's inheritance claims based on
family arrangements and subsequent improvements to the property, showcasing estoppel's role in preventing
unconscionable denials of informally created expectations.
Estoppel's application in family law disputes has produced some of the doctrine's most nuanced developments. The
Bombay High Court in Prakash v. Gangadhar (1985) applied estoppel to prevent a husband from denying marriage
after years of cohabitation, while the Delhi High Court in Neelam v. Saroj (2000) used similar principles to enforce
maintenance agreements. These cases demonstrate how estoppel helps courts navigate the complex interplay
between formal legal requirements and the realities of family relationships, particularly in a society where many
3
M/S. Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad vs New Delhi Municipal Committee on 14 July, 1993, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1985926/ (last
visited Apr 8, 2025).
4
S. Rajan vs State Of Kerala And Another on 29 July, 1992, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1415267/ (last visited Apr 8, 2025).
arrangements remain informal.
The doctrine's boundaries in civil matters have been carefully delineated through case law. The Supreme Court
in M.P. Sugar Mills emphasized that estoppel cannot create a cause of action where none exists, but only prevents a
party from insisting on their strict legal rights. Similarly, in Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Union of India (1996),
the Court clarified that estoppel cannot override clear statutory provisions or compel unlawful actions. These
limitations ensure that while estoppel remains a powerful equitable tool, it operates within the broader framework
of legal principles and public policy considerations.
Contemporary applications of estoppel in civil matters continue to expand into new areas. The rise of e-commerce
has seen courts applying estoppel principles to online transactions and digital representations. The Delhi High
Court's 2019 decision in Amazon v. Future Retail demonstrated how traditional estoppel concepts adapt to complex
commercial arrangements involving multiple jurisdictions and digital platforms. Similarly, environmental law cases
have begun employing estoppel to hold polluters to their remediation promises, as seen in the National Green
Tribunal's 2020 decision in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. MoEF&CC.
The civil justice system's embrace of estoppel reflects its capacity to address gaps in formal legal structures while
maintaining essential fairness. By preventing parties from unconscionably resiling from their representations,
estoppel serves as a vital corrective mechanism in contractual relations, property disputes, and an expanding range
of other civil matters. Its continued evolution will likely see further applications in emerging areas like digital
rights and environmental protection, while maintaining its core function as an instrument of equity and justice.
Estoppel in Criminal Matters
The application of estoppel principles in criminal proceedings presents unique challenges and operates under
significantly different parameters than in civil cases. The fundamental distinction arises from the criminal justice
system's overriding concern with protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring the integrity of the truth-seeking
process. While Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam theoretically applies to all legal proceedings,
courts have developed specific limitations and modifications to accommodate criminal law's distinctive
requirements and safeguards.
Issue estoppel represents the primary manifestation of estoppel principles in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme
Court's landmark decision in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab (1969) established that when a particular issue of fact
has been conclusively determined in favor of the accused in a prior proceeding, the prosecution cannot reopen that
issue in subsequent proceedings. This principle was further refined in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiligada
Meeraiah (1969), where the Court distinguished issue estoppel from the constitutional protection against double
jeopardy under Article 20(2), clarifying that while double jeopardy bars retrial for the same offense, issue estoppel
prevents relitigation of specific factual determinations.
The cautious application of estoppel in criminal matters reflects several policy considerations. First and foremost is
the presumption of innocence, which requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without
being aided by evidentiary shortcuts. The Supreme Court emphasized this in State of Punjab v. Gurmit
Singh (1996), rejecting the prosecution's attempt to estop the accused from changing his defense strategy. The
Court held that while inconsistent defenses might affect credibility assessment, they could not completely preclude
an accused from presenting alternative defenses at trial.
Courts have been particularly reluctant to apply estoppel against accused persons in matters concerning
constitutional protections. The Delhi High Court's decision in Rajiv Bhatia v. State (2018) illustrates this principle,
where the prosecution's attempt to estop the accused from challenging witness credibility was rejected as
incompatible with the right to a fair trial. Similarly, in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra (2000), the Supreme Court held that estoppel could not prevent an accused from asserting
fundamental rights, even if they had previously taken contradictory positions.
The evidentiary standards for applying issue estoppel in criminal cases remain stringent. The Supreme Court
in Masud Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1974) established that for issue estoppel to operate, the prior
determination must be clear, unambiguous, and essential to the earlier verdict. This high threshold ensures that only
conclusively resolved issues receive estoppel protection, preserving the prosecution's ability to pursue legitimate
claims while preventing harassment through repetitive litigation.
Estoppel's operation between co-accused persons presents additional complexities. The Bombay High Court
in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) held that while one accused's acquittal might create issue estoppel
regarding specific facts, it generally does not automatically benefit co-accused unless the facts were inseparably
linked. This approach balances finality interests with the need for individualized justice in criminal proceedings.
Recent developments have seen courts cautiously extending estoppel principles to certain procedural aspects of
criminal cases. The Delhi High Court in Vijay Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2021) applied estoppel to
prevent the prosecution from taking contradictory procedural positions that would prejudice the accused. Similarly,
the Karnataka High Court in State v. Ramesh (2019) used estoppel to prevent the prosecution from withdrawing
charges after inducing the defense to disclose its strategy. These applications demonstrate how estoppel can serve
as a safeguard against prosecutorial overreach while respecting the accused's fundamental rights.
The limitations of estoppel in criminal law become particularly apparent in plea bargaining situations. The
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (1999) held that withdrawal from plea negotiations could
not be estopped, as the constitutional safeguards surrounding guilty pleas require absolute voluntariness. This
principle was reaffirmed in Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana (2015), emphasizing that estoppel cannot compromise the
integrity of the criminal justice process.
Emerging areas like white-collar crimes and cross-border prosecutions present new challenges for estoppel
applications. The Delhi High Court's 2022 decision in Enforcement Directorate v. Ratul Puri grappled with
whether estoppel could bind agencies across different jurisdictions, ultimately adopting a cautious approach that
prioritized the accused's right to present a complete defense. These complex cases highlight how estoppel must
continually adapt to new legal and technological realities while maintaining its core equitable purpose.
The future development of estoppel in criminal law will likely focus on balancing interests with truth-seeking
imperatives. As justice systems worldwide grapple with issues like cross-nation crimes and digital evidence, Indian
courts will need to carefully calibrate estoppel principles to serve equity without compromising fundamental rights.
The doctrine's continued evolution in criminal matters will depend on maintaining this delicate equilibrium
between fairness to all parties and the criminal justice system's overarching truth-finding function.
Conclusion
The comprehensive analysis of estoppel's application across civil and criminal matters reveals a doctrine of
remarkable versatility and enduring significance in Indian jurisprudence. From its statutory foundation in Section
121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to its expansive judicial interpretations, estoppel has evolved into a
sophisticated equitable instrument that addresses the complex realities of legal disputes while maintaining fidelity
to fundamental principles of fairness and justice. The doctrine's differential treatment in civil and criminal contexts
reflects not inconsistency, but rather a nuanced understanding of the distinct policy considerations that govern these
separate legal domains.
In civil matters, estoppel has emerged as a dynamic tool for enforcing conscionable conduct and preventing
injustice, particularly in contractual and property disputes. Landmark decisions like Union of India v. Anglo
Afghan Agencies and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills have established promissory estoppel as a vital mechanism for
holding parties - including government entities - accountable for their representations. The expansion of proprietary
estoppel in cases like Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels demonstrates how the doctrine adapts to
protect legitimate expectations arising from informal arrangements. These civil applications showcase estoppel's
capacity to serve as an equitable corrective to rigid legal formalities, ensuring that substantive fairness prevails over
technical deficiencies.
The criminal justice system's more cautious approach to estoppel, as evidenced in cases like Piara Singh v. State of
Punjab and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, reflects appropriate regard for the heightened protections afforded to
accused persons. The careful distinction between issue estoppel and double jeopardy, the reluctance to estop
accused persons from presenting defenses, and the stringent standards for applying estoppel in criminal
proceedings all demonstrate how the doctrine has been thoughtfully adapted to accommodate criminal law's unique
requirements. This calibrated approach preserves estoppel's equitable function while safeguarding fundamental
rights and the integrity of the truth-seeking process.
Several key themes emerge from this comprehensive examination of estoppel's role in Indian law. First is the
doctrine's remarkable adaptability across diverse legal contexts, from commercial contracts to property disputes to
criminal proceedings. This flexibility stems from estoppel's foundation in overarching principles of equity rather
than rigid technical rules. Second is the consistent emphasis on balancing competing interests - between fairness to
relying parties and respect for legal formalities, between finality and truth-seeking, between individual equity and
public interest. The judiciary's careful navigation of these tensions has allowed estoppel to remain relevant across
changing legal and social landscapes.
The study also reveals areas where estoppel's application remains inconsistent or uncertain. In civil matters, the
interface between promissory estoppel and statutory authority continues to generate litigation, as seen in the
conflicting approaches in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and subsequent cases. The boundaries of proprietary estoppel in
family arrangements likewise require clearer delineation. In criminal law, the parameters of issue estoppel need
more precise definition, particularly regarding its operation between co-accused and across multiple proceedings.
These areas of uncertainty suggest opportunities for legislative clarification or more definitive judicial guidance.
Moving forward, several reforms could enhance estoppel's effectiveness and consistency. Legislative action to
codify issue estoppel principles in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita would provide clearer guidance in
criminal proceedings. The development of more structured standards for promissory estoppel claims against
government entities would promote predictability while preserving necessary flexibility. Enhanced judicial training
on estoppel's equitable foundations and contemporary applications could foster more consistent decision-making
across courts. These reforms would build upon estoppel's strengths while addressing its current limitations.
The doctrine's future evolution will likely be shaped by emerging legal challenges. Digital transactions, cross-
border disputes, environmental claims, and other contemporary issues present new contexts for estoppel
applications. The judiciary's response to these challenges will determine whether estoppel remains a vibrant,
evolving equitable tool or becomes constrained by outdated formulations. Early indications, such as the Delhi High
Court's approach in Amazon v. Future Retail, suggest that Indian courts are willing to adapt estoppel principles to
meet new realities while maintaining core equitable values.
Ultimately, estoppel's enduring significance lies in its unique capacity to bridge the gap between law and equity,
between formal rules and substantive justice. As the Indian legal system continues to evolve in response to social,
economic, and technological changes, estoppel will undoubtedly continue to play a vital role in ensuring that
fairness and consistency remain at the heart of legal proceedings. The doctrine's rich jurisprudential heritage,
combined with its demonstrated adaptability, positions it to remain a cornerstone of Indian equity law for the
foreseeable future. By maintaining its careful balance between flexibility and principle, estoppel will continue to
serve as an indispensable instrument of justice across the full spectrum of civil and criminal matters.