Approbate and reprobate is a legal doctrine which means one cannot accept and reject the same thing, blow hot and cold, or take two opposite stands. It is based on the Latin maxim quod approbo non reprobo (“that which I approve, I cannot disapprove”). It stops a person from taking advantage of a deal or court order and then later claiming it is invalid to get a different advantage.
Approbate and Reprobate in Essence Means
A person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, and then turn around and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction.
Basic Rules of the Doctrine
- One cannot keep the good parts of a contract or judgment while refusing the bad parts.
- It is a branch of the law of election and estoppel by conduct (where your past actions block you from saying the opposite later).
- Courts use this rule to ensure that people act in good faith and do not play tricks on legal proceedings by altering or manipulating their assertions or statements.
Some Examples
If you accept money or benefits from an agreement, you cannot later sue to say that same agreement is illegal or void.
Similarly, if you follow a court order or take part in an arbitration process without complaint, you cannot later turn around and claim the court or arbitrator had no right to decide the case.
Supreme Court Precedents
In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [AIR 1992 SC 352], the Supreme Court observed: “Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ‘a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.'”
In Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd [2023 INSC 949], the Supreme Court observed: “As an example, we can take the case of eviction of a tenant. If he is to be evicted only under the Rent Control Act, which extends a certain right to the tenant who cannot be evicted otherwise than under the provisions contained therein, a common law remedy cannot be invoked by way of a suit as against a proceeding before the Rent Controller.”
Conclusion
A person may not “approbate” and “reprobate” simultaneously. The courts, in this sense, have held that an action at law is not a chess game. The court relies on the person who takes consistent stands, whereas a person who takes inconsistent stands is not to be relied upon.
