(i) Trading with an alien enemy. It is now fully established that trading with an alien enemy ( i.e. a citizen of the other country at war with the state ) is against public polity in so far as It tends to aid the economy of the enemy country. Such agreements are therefore illegal, unless made with the special permission of Government. It is to be noted that an agreement to promote hostile action in a friendly state is also illegal and void as being opposed to public policy.
(ii) Agreements interfering with the course of justice, An agreement the object of which is to interfere with the course of justice, e.g., an agreement not to disclose misconduct to the other interested party or an agreement to influence a judge to induce him to decide the case in a party’s favour, is obviously opposed to public policy and is void. But an agreement to refer present or future disputes to ‘arbitration is a valid agreement.
(iii) Agreements for stifling criminal prosecution:. It is well settled law that if a-person has committed a crime, he must be punished. Hence any agreement which seeks to prevent the prosecution of a guilty party is opposed to public policy and is void” In Sudhindra Kumar vs Ganesh Chand, it was observed: “No court of law can countenance or give effect to an agreement which attempts to take the administration of law out of the hands of the judges and put it in the hands of private individuals.” Where, there fore, A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the thing taken, the agreement is void, as its object is unlawful.
Similarly, the compromise of a public offence is illegal . It is obvious that if such a course is allowed to be adopted and agreements made between the parties based solely on the consideration of stifling criminal prosecutions are sustained, the basic pur-pose of Criminal Law would be defeated. However, under the Indian Criminal Procedure Code there are certain c o mpoundabl e o f f e n c e s(e.g., assault) which can be compromised and agreements for the compromise of such offences are valid (Ramachandra vs Bhauwari Bai).
(iv) Maintenance and Champertv: ‘Maintenance’ may be defined as an agreement whereby a stranger promises to help another person by money or otherwise in litigation in which that -third person has himself no legal interest. ‘Champerty’ is an agreement whereby a person agrees to assist another in litigation in exchange promise to hand over a portion of the proceeds of the action. Thus, in both cases financial or professional assistance is provided with a view to assisting another person in litigation but in case of champerty the party helping in litigation also shares in the gains of the litigation in addition to interest on money advanced or fees for professional services.
(v) Traffic in public offices. Agreements for sale or transfer of public offices or for appointments to public offices in consideration of money are -illegal, being opposed to public policy. Such agreements, if enforced, would lead to inefficiency and corruption in public life.
(vi) Agreements creating an interest opposed to duty. An agreement which tends to create a conflict between interest and duty is illegal and. void on. the ground that it is opposed to public policy.
(vii) Agreements unduly restraining personal liberty: Agreements which unduly restrict personal freedom have been held to be void and illegal as being against public policy.
(viii)Agreements interfering with parental duties. A father, and in his absence the mother, is the legal guardian of his/her minor child. The au-thority of a guardian is to be exercised in the best’ interest of the child, in accordance with good public morals. If, therefore, the right of guardianship is bartered away by any agreement, which is - inconsistent with the duties arising out of such custody such an agreement shall be void on the ground of public policy.
(ix) Marriage brokerage agreements. These are agreements for the- payment of money in consideration of procuring for another in marriage a husband or a wife. Such agreement its are illegal and void as being contrary to public policy.
(x) Miscellaneous cases. The following agreements have also been held to be against public policy:
(a) Agreements “tending to create monopolies” are illegal and void (Kameshwar Singh vs Yasin Khan). .
(b) Agreements to the fraud revenue authorities are void and illegal.
(c) Agreements whereby money is given to induce persons to give evidences in a civil court are void because every one is expected to perform his legal duty ( Adhiraja Shatty vs Vittil Bhatta).
(ii) Agreements interfering with the course of justice, An agreement the object of which is to interfere with the course of justice, e.g., an agreement not to disclose misconduct to the other interested party or an agreement to influence a judge to induce him to decide the case in a party’s favour, is obviously opposed to public policy and is void. But an agreement to refer present or future disputes to ‘arbitration is a valid agreement.
(iii) Agreements for stifling criminal prosecution:. It is well settled law that if a-person has committed a crime, he must be punished. Hence any agreement which seeks to prevent the prosecution of a guilty party is opposed to public policy and is void” In Sudhindra Kumar vs Ganesh Chand, it was observed: “No court of law can countenance or give effect to an agreement which attempts to take the administration of law out of the hands of the judges and put it in the hands of private individuals.” Where, there fore, A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the thing taken, the agreement is void, as its object is unlawful.
Similarly, the compromise of a public offence is illegal . It is obvious that if such a course is allowed to be adopted and agreements made between the parties based solely on the consideration of stifling criminal prosecutions are sustained, the basic pur-pose of Criminal Law would be defeated. However, under the Indian Criminal Procedure Code there are certain c o mpoundabl e o f f e n c e s(e.g., assault) which can be compromised and agreements for the compromise of such offences are valid (Ramachandra vs Bhauwari Bai).
(iv) Maintenance and Champertv: ‘Maintenance’ may be defined as an agreement whereby a stranger promises to help another person by money or otherwise in litigation in which that -third person has himself no legal interest. ‘Champerty’ is an agreement whereby a person agrees to assist another in litigation in exchange promise to hand over a portion of the proceeds of the action. Thus, in both cases financial or professional assistance is provided with a view to assisting another person in litigation but in case of champerty the party helping in litigation also shares in the gains of the litigation in addition to interest on money advanced or fees for professional services.
(v) Traffic in public offices. Agreements for sale or transfer of public offices or for appointments to public offices in consideration of money are -illegal, being opposed to public policy. Such agreements, if enforced, would lead to inefficiency and corruption in public life.
(vi) Agreements creating an interest opposed to duty. An agreement which tends to create a conflict between interest and duty is illegal and. void on. the ground that it is opposed to public policy.
(vii) Agreements unduly restraining personal liberty: Agreements which unduly restrict personal freedom have been held to be void and illegal as being against public policy.
(viii)Agreements interfering with parental duties. A father, and in his absence the mother, is the legal guardian of his/her minor child. The au-thority of a guardian is to be exercised in the best’ interest of the child, in accordance with good public morals. If, therefore, the right of guardianship is bartered away by any agreement, which is - inconsistent with the duties arising out of such custody such an agreement shall be void on the ground of public policy.
(ix) Marriage brokerage agreements. These are agreements for the- payment of money in consideration of procuring for another in marriage a husband or a wife. Such agreement its are illegal and void as being contrary to public policy.
(x) Miscellaneous cases. The following agreements have also been held to be against public policy:
(a) Agreements “tending to create monopolies” are illegal and void (Kameshwar Singh vs Yasin Khan). .
(b) Agreements to the fraud revenue authorities are void and illegal.
(c) Agreements whereby money is given to induce persons to give evidences in a civil court are void because every one is expected to perform his legal duty ( Adhiraja Shatty vs Vittil Bhatta).
What are the agreements have been held to be against public policy?
![What are the agreements have been held to be against public policy?]()
Reviewed by Hosne
on
9:53 PM
Rating:
