COERCION UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

Introduction

One of the essentials of a valid contract mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act is that parties should enter into the contract with their free consent. According to Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, consent is said to be free when it is not caused by

• coercion, as defined in Section 15, or
• undue influence, as defined in Section 16, or
• fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
• misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18, or
• mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22

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

Coercion

According to Section 15, coercion is the committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal code, 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.

1. Act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code

    It has been noted above that if a person commits or threatens to commit an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code with a view to obtaining the consent of the other person to an agreement, the consent in such a case is deemed to have been obtained by coercion. For instance, A threatens to shoot B if B does not agree to sell his property to A at a stated price, B's consent, in this case, has been obtained by coercion.
     
   For coercion, it is not necessary that the Indian Penal Code should be applicable at the place where the consent has been so caused. Explanation to Section 15 makes it clear that to constitute coercion, "it is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed." 

In Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti, I.L.R.(1889) 13 Mad. 214., the question before the Madras High Court was regarding the validity of the adoption of a boy by a widow, aged 13 years. On the death of her husband, the husband's dead body was not allowed to be removed from her house for cremation, by the relatives of the adopted boy until she adopted the boy. It was held that the adoption was not binding on the widow as her consent had been obtained by coercion. 

  In Chikkan Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshama, I.L.R.(1918) 41 Mad. 33., the question before the Madras High Court was whether coercion could be caused by a threat to commit suicide. In this case, A, a Hindu, by a threat of suicide, induced his wife and son to execute a release deed in favour of A's brother in respect of certain properties claimed as their own by the wife and the son. 

     
The question before the court was whether a threat to commit suicide could be considered to be an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. It was held by Wallis, CJ and Seshagiri Ayyar, J. that a threat to commit suicide amounted to coercion within the meaning of Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore the release deed was voidable.

However, Oldfield, J., who dissented was of the view that suicide is not an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (only an attempt to commit suicide is punishable under Section 309, Indian Penal code) and a threat to do that could not be considered to be a threat to do a forbidden act within the meaning of Section 15 of the Contract Act.

2. Unlawful detaining of property

According to Section 15, coercion could also be caused by 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. If the detention of the property is not unlawful there is no coercion. For example, if a mortgagee refuses to convey the equity of redemption except on the terms dictated to him, there is nothing unlawful in it and therefore, no coercion is caused in this case.

3. To the prejudice of a person

Section 15 requires that there should be committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal code, 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.

       It means that the act causing coercion should not necessarily be directed against the contracting party, it is enough that the act is to the prejudice of any person whatever, and with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement. If, for example, A unlawfully detains B's son, C, in order to coerce B to enter into the agreement, the case would be covered within this section. Apart from that, it is also not necessary that the wrongful act causing coercion should proceed from the party to the contract such as the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti. 

A threat to strike is no coercion. Statutory compulsion is no coercion. In case of coercion not only the contract is voidable under Section 19 but if some money has been paid or goods delivered by a party to the contract under coercion, the same is recoverable under Section 72.

It was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Seth Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India, Limited (1913) I.R. 40 I.A. 56, s. c. 15 Bom. L.R. 472 that the word "coercion" in Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act is used in its general and ordinary sense, its meaning not being controlled by the definition of "coercion" in Section 15 of the Act. 

Difference between Coercion and Duress

Coercion under Indian law is also synonymous with duress under Common law. However, there are some differences which are as follows:

• Coercion in India means committing or threatening to commit an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Duress, under Common Law, consists of actual violence or threat of violence to a person. It includes doing an illegal act against a person, whether it be a crime or a tort. Thus, unlike coercion, duress is not confined to unlawful acts forbidden by any specific penal law, as the Indian Penal Code in India.
• In India, coercion can also be there by detaining or threatening to detain any person or property. In England, duress is constituted by acts or threats against the person of a man and not against his property.
• In India, coercion may proceed from a person who is not a party to the contract, and it may also be directed against a person who, again, maybe a stranger to the contract. In England, duress should proceed from a party to the contract and is also directed against the party to the contract himself, or his wife, parent, child, or other near relatives.