What are the agreements which are held to be opposed to public policy under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Explain any 6 such agreements.

Some of the agreements which are held to be opposed to public policy are- (1) Trading with enemy: Any trade with person owing allegiance to a Government at war with India without the licence of the Government of India is void, as the object is opposed to public policy. Here, the agreement to trade offends against the public policy by tending to prejudice the interest of the State in times of war. (2) Stifling Prosecution: An agreement to stifle prosecution i.e. “an agreement to present proceedings already instituted from running their normal course using force” tends to be a perversion or an abuse of justice; therefore, such an agreement is void. The principle is that one should not make a trade of felony. The compromise of any public offence is generally illegal. Under the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, there is, however, a statutory list of compoundable offences and an agreement to drop proceeding relating to such offences with or without the permission of the Court, as the case may be, in consideration the accused promising to do something for the complainant, is not opposed to public policy. (3) Maintenance and Champerty: Maintenance is an agreement in which a person promises to maintain suit in which he has no interest. Champerty is an agreement in which a person agrees to assist another in litigation in-exchange of a promise to hand over a portion of the proceeds of the action. (a) It is unreasonable so as to be unjust to other party or (b) It is made by a malicious motive like that of gambling in litigation or oppressing other party by encouraging unrighteous suits and not with the bonafide object of assisting a claim believed to be just. (4) Trafficking relating to Public Offices and titles: An agreement to trafficking in public office is opposed to public policy, as it interferes with the appointment of a person best qualified for the service of the public. Public policy requires that there should be no money consideration for the appointment to an office in which the public is interested. The following are the examples of agreements that are void; since they are tantamount to sale of public offices. (1) An agreement to pay money to a public servant in order to induce him to retire from his office so that another person may secure the appointment is void. (2) An agreement to procure a public recognition like Padma Vibhushan for reward is void. (5) Agreements tending to create monopolies: Agreements having for their object the establishment of monopolies are opposed to public policy and therefore void. (6) Marriage brokerage agreements: An agreement to negotiate marriage for reward, which is known as a marriage brokerage contract, is void, as it is opposed to public policy. (7) Interference with the course of justice: An agreement whose object is to induce any judicial officer of the State to act partially or corruptly is void, as it is opposed to public policy. (8) Interest against obligation: The following are examples of agreement that are void as they tend to create an interest against obligation. The object of such agreements is opposed to public policy. (1) An agreement by an agent to receive without his principal’s consent compensation from another for the performance of his agency is invalid. (2) A, who is the manager of a firm, agrees to pass a contract to X if X pays to A ` 200,000 privately; the agreement is void. (9) Consideration Unlawful in Part: By virtue of Section 24, if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.” This section is an obvious consequence of the general principle of Section 23. There is no promise for a lawful consideration if there is anything illegal in a consideration which must be taken as a whole. The general rule is that where the legal part of a contract can be severed from the illegal part, the bad part may be rejected and the good one can be retained. But where the illegal part cannot be severed, the contract is altogether void.