Free Consent- Coercion

 In the previous article, the causes of consent not being free were introduced. In this article, one of those causes, coercion, would be dealt with in detail.

Definition

Coercion literally translates to the use of force to make a person do something which he does not intend to do or make him/her abstain from doing something which he intends to do. 

Coercion is defined under section 15 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 as

“ ‘Coercion’ is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

Explanation. — It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.”

The elements of coercion can be explained through the following chart:-

 

The first element i.e. intention is the most important for any act to be construed as coercion. A person should be committing or threatening to commit the acts specified in the section with the intention to cause another person to enter into an agreement to create an impression of coercion. There are two specific actions mentioned in the definition which would constitute as coercion. They are: -

1.     Any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code-

Section 15 states that if a person does any act which is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or threatens to do so, in order to cause another person to enter an agreement, he commits coercion. It is not necessary that such coercion proceed from a party to the contract or is directed immediately against a person who is intended to enter into a contract.

For example, Penny threatens Sheldon to kill him if he does not transfer his property to Leonard. Thus, Penny threatens to commit murder which is a crime under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Another example would be, Kaleen Bhaiyya, a local goon threatens Guddu to kidnap and rape his minor sister, Dimpy if he does not agree to get her married to Kaleen’s son Munna. Here Kaleen bhaiyya threatens to commit kidnapping and rape which are punishable offences under the Indian Penal Code to get Guddu to give consent for marriage on behalf of Dimpy as her guardian.

It is required by the phrase “act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code” for the court to adjudge in a civil suit whether the contended act of coercion is such to amount as an offence. In a case of Chikkam Amiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma, an issue arose that whether a property release executed by a wife and son as a result of a threat of suicide by the husband is to be understood as an effect of coercion or not? It was held by the court by a majority that the threat of suicide amounts to coercion and thus the release deed is voidable. The issue arose on the difference of opinion of whether suicide is an offence under the IPC or not? The majority opined that suicide is an offence. It is not punishable because once it is committed there is no one left to punish but that does not mean that it is not forbidden. The definition of coercion specified that it includes acts forbidden by the IPC. Therefore, a threat to suicide will amount to coercion according to the definition laid down in Section 15. Judge Oldfield dissented on the ground that unless an act is not punishable it is not forbidden.  

A meagre threat of bringing criminal charges against someone does not amount to coercion as it is not by itself forbidden by the IPC. However, threatening to bring a false charge is coercion (Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori). For example, Kashish threatens her boss to bring a fake sexual harassment case against him if he does not give her a promotion. This will amount to coercion and the promotion will thus be voidable.

2.     Unlawful detention of property

An illustration of unlawful detention as coercion can be seen in an early case, Astley v. Reynolds. In this case the plaintiff plighted a plate to the defendant for £20. After three years, when the plaintiff came to redeem his plate, the defendant refused and demanded an interest of £10. The plaintiff was in urgent need of the plate and thus paid the interest to redeem it. He then filed a case in court for recovery of the extra amount paid. The court allowed the action for recovery. It was held that the plaintiff was in immediate need to his plate and the defendant extracted an extra amount of money from him by refusing to return it.

Another example is when Fizer, a multinational company, fires an employee named Rajesh. Rajesh gets hold of some confidential information and he threatens to release it to the public if the company doesn’t hire him back. The company hires him back. Such appointment is voidable later on at the option of the company because it was made due to coercion. (Muthiah Chetti v. Karuppan Chettiar)

Effect of coercion on the agreement

If consent to an agreement is given due to coercion, it does not make the agreement void ab initio (void since the very beginning) but it makes the agreement voidable at the option of the party whose consent is not free. This rule is provided under section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The relevant portion of the section is as follows,

“When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.”

Therefore, the agreement can be declared void or it can be continued as it is at the option of the party whose consent is affected by coercion.

For example, Dimpy was married to Munna, the consent to which was given due to coercion. Dimpy can now choose to continue the marriage or declare the marriage as without consent therefore voidable.

BY

LAWVASTUTAH

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Indian Contract Act, 1872

2.     Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 16th edition.

3.     Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief, 12th edition.

4.      Halsbury’s Laws of India Contract, 2e 2015.

5.     Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma, AIR 1918 Mad 414, (1918) ILR 41 Mad 33, 34 IC 578 (SB).

6.     Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori, (1912) 16 IC 344.

7.     Astley v. Reynolds, (1731) 2 STR 915: 93 ER 939.

8.     Muthiah Chetti v. Karuppan Chettiar, (1927) 50 Mad 786, 105 IC 5, AIR 1927 Mad 852.