Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The principle what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly is rooted in legal doctrine and is reinforced through case law, emphasizing adherence to statutory and procedural limits.
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the intricate world of law, certain principles stand as unyielding guardians of justice, ensuring that clever maneuvers do not undermine statutory prohibitions. One such cornerstone maxim is what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. This doctrine, deeply embedded in judicial precedents, particularly in Indian courts, prevents parties from achieving forbidden outcomes through roundabout methods or contrivances. Whether you're a legal practitioner, business owner, or simply navigating legal matters, understanding this principle can safeguard against unintended violations.
This blog post delves into the essence of this maxim, its historical roots, key judicial applications, exceptions, and practical implications. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
The question at the heart of this principle is straightforward yet profound: What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Courts have repeatedly affirmed this as a well-settled rule, rooted in the Latin maxim quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud—meaning if something is prohibited, every path leading to it is also barred. This ensures the law's integrity by closing loopholes that could erode its purpose. INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 853
As articulated in a key judgment: The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly is well settled... Whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance. INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 853
This maxim draws from longstanding legal doctrine, emphasizing that prohibitions extend beyond overt acts to any indirect means of circumvention. It reflects the broader idea that qui facit per alium facit per se—he who acts through another does it himself—prohibiting evasion via proxies or shifts. FARHAT HUSSAIN AZAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 2623
Judicial consistency underscores its universality. Courts have invoked it across substantive and procedural contexts, from contract disputes to procedural filings, reinforcing that attempts to dodge direct prohibitions invite sanctions. INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 853FARHAT HUSSAIN AZAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 2623Prem Kumar Joshi, Chhatra Pal Singh Sisodia VS State of U. P. - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 1204
Indian courts have applied this principle rigorously to maintain procedural purity and substantive justice. Here are notable instances:
In procedural matters, miscellaneous applications cannot masquerade as review petitions. For example, the Supreme Court held: Since these miscellaneous applications seek review of orders in substance, they are akin to review petitions and cannot be used as a backdoor method to bypass the law. The Court held that 'what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.' Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 507
Similarly, in arbitration contexts, challenges to orders under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act cannot be routed through constitutional provisions indirectly. It is also a settled proposition that what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Supriyo Kumar Saha vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3870
In a case involving temporary injunctions under the Civil Procedure Code, courts struck down orders granted without mandatory notices under the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. The ruling emphasized: What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, deeming Section 94 CPC applications unmaintainable absent compliance. M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs Prakash Nagpal - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37805
Even in enforcement scenarios, like illegal water connections, courts direct immediate disconnection, noting: I took note of the fact that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Romana W/o.Mr.Jayaraj vs Thiru J.Kumaragurubaran Commissioner Corporation of Chennai - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57939
The principle appears in diverse rulings, such as barring indirect claims for damages where direct rights were waived knowingly: Well settled that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Shiv Kumar Sharma VS Santosh Kumari - 2007 6 Supreme 346 It also prevents 'clarification' applications that effectively modify final judgments, as seen in references to Common Cause (2004) 5 SCC 222: What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. SUPERTECH LTD. vs EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATIONSONIA Vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR - 2023 Supreme(Del) 9504
These cases illustrate the maxim's role in curbing misuse, from arbitration minimalism under Section 5 to upholding statutory notice requirements. Supriyo Kumar Saha vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3870
While stringent, the principle isn't absolute. Genuine procedural steps, like seeking clarification without altering substance, may survive scrutiny if not evasive. Courts urge prudence: Miscellaneous applications cannot be used as a tool to modify final judgments, as what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, but distinguish bona fide filings. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 507
In contempt proceedings, compliance closes matters, but revival is permitted for future breaches, balancing enforcement with fairness. Romana W/o.Mr.Jayaraj vs Thiru J.Kumaragurubaran Commissioner Corporation of Chennai - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57939
Key factors courts consider:- Intent: Is it a disguised circumvention?- Substance over Form: Does it achieve a prohibited end?- Statutory Silence: No indirect route where direct is barred. Supriyo Kumar Saha vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3870
To navigate this maxim effectively:- Avoid Circuitous Pleadings: Frame applications transparently; indirect aims risk dismissal.- Scrutinize Compliance: Ensure all statutory prerequisites are met before filing.- Anticipate Judicial Scrutiny: Courts vigilantly probe for evasion tactics.- Seek Alternatives: Explore permissible paths rather than workarounds.
Litigants should heed: Legal practitioners should refrain from framing applications or actions that aim to circumvent legal prohibitions through indirect means. Courts, too, must uphold it to preserve the rule of law.
The enduring judicial stance confirms: what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly safeguards legal prohibitions from erosion. By closing indirect paths, courts uphold justice's sanctity. Stay informed, comply diligently, and consult professionals to align with this vital principle.
References (select excerpts):1. INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 853: Foundational articulation.2. Champalal VS Jasnath - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1922: Reinforcement of direct/indirect bar.3. FARHAT HUSSAIN AZAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 2623: Qui facit per alium linkage.4. Prem Kumar Joshi, Chhatra Pal Singh Sisodia VS State of U. P. - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 1204: Prohibition on indirect acts.5. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 507: Backdoor review rejection.6. SUPERTECH LTD. vs EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION: Clarification misuse.7. Supriyo Kumar Saha vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3870: Arbitration limits.8. SONIA Vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR - 2023 Supreme(Del) 9504: Common Cause echo.9. M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs Prakash Nagpal - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37805: Injunction notice.10. Romana W/o.Mr.Jayaraj vs Thiru J.Kumaragurubaran Commissioner Corporation of Chennai - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57939: Enforcement directive.
This principle remains a bulwark against legal ingenuity gone awry, ensuring equity prevails.
#LegalMaxim, #IndirectCircumvention, #LawPrinciple
Further it is not related to you directly/indirectly and doesn’t involve any public interest. Therefore the information cannot be provided as same being exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. ... nor indirectly relates to him. ... Responding to the issues raised by him would tantamount to breach of bank secrecy and privacy of customer accounts. 1) Provide the guidelines of bank/CPGRAM depict....
What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.” 16. In Common Cause [(2004) 5 SCC 222] Lahoti, J. ... What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The court should not permit hearing of such an application for ‘clarification’, ‘mo....
It is also a settled proposition that what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. ... In absence of any mechanism in Arbitration & Conciliation Act to challenge the order under Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Constitutional provisions cannot be pressed into service. ... The Apex Court has time and again asserted that the Court....
be done directly cannot be permitted to be done done indirectly. ... The principle is, what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but that has not been done ... We are of the view that the petitioner cann....
What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.‖ 16. In Common Cause [(2004) 5 SCC 222] Lahoti, J. ... What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Son....
be done directly, cannot be alloweCd to be done indirectly, by permitting the aggrieved party to challenge the award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ... view that when the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, which is a special Act and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a creation whereof, specifically bars appeals in certain cases against the awards passed by learned Tribunal,u taking into con....
It is well settled that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. 74. The term „waiver‟ has been described in the following words: „1471. Waiver. ... What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.” 17. Once the suit was barred, then the provision of Special A....
I took note of the fact that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly, and therefore, the illegal connection that has been effected was directed to be disconnected forthwith. 3.
What cannot be done directly under the law cannot be permitted to be done indirectly by invoking some other form of jurisdiction. When a statute confers a specific power, the exercise of that power must be within the four corners of that statute. ... The Apex Court in paragraph 37 has held that a court of law must act strictly within the scope and limits of the power conferred upon it by....
What cannot be done directly under the law cannot be permitted to be done indirectly by invoking some other form of jurisdiction. When a statute confers a specific power, the exercise of that power must be within the four corners of that statute. ... The Apex Court in paragraph 37 has held that a court of law must act strictly within the scope and limits of the power conferred upon it by....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
