CONTENT

TOPIC
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION
2-3
WHAT IS COERCION?
4-5
ACT FORBIDDEN BY THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
6-7
UNLAWFUL DETAINING OF PROPERTY
7
PREJUDICE TO THE PERSON
7
BURDEN OF PROOF
8
COMPULSION OF LAW
8
EXTENT OF COERCION UNDER THE LAW
9-10
COMPARISION WITH ENGLISH LAW
10-11
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COERCION AND DURESS
12
LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
13-14
CONCLUSION
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
16

1 | Page

INTRODUCTION
A contract as defined by the Indian Contract Act of 1872 is an
agreement enforceable by law. Though the definition of a
contract is simple enough, they are various facets and
intricacies to this. There are various essential requirements for
a valid contract like lawful object, lawful consideration,
competency to contract, free consent, etc. as stated under
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Out of these various intricacies one is Free consent. According
to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 free consent is
one of the essential requirements of a contract. Section 14
defines Free Consent. Consent is said to be free if it is not
caused by:
Coercion (Section 15) Consent is said to be caused by
coercion when it is obtained by pressure exerted by either
committing or threatening to commit an act forbidden by
the Indian Penal Code or unlawfully detaining or
threatening to detain any property.
Undue influence (Section16) A contract is said to be
induced by undue influence where the relation
subsisting between the parties are such that one of the
parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other
and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over
the other.
Fraud (Section17) Means and includes the following
acts done with the intention to deceive or to induce a
person to enter into a contract. (a) the suggestion that a
fact is true when it is not true and the person making the
suggestion does not believe it to be true (b) active
concealment of a fact by a person who has knowledge or
belief of the fact, (c) promise made without the intention
of performing it.
Misrepresentation (Section 18) When a person
positively asserts that a fact is true when his information
does not warrant it to be so, though he believes it to be
true, it is misrepresentation. A breach of duty
which
brings an advantage to the person committing it by
2 | Page

misleading the other to his prejudice is also a

misrepresentation.
Mistake (Section 20,21,22) Where both parties to an
agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact
essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. An
erroneous opinion as the value of the thing, which forms
the subject matter of the agreement, is not deemed as
mistake as to a matter of fact. Unilateral mistake, i.e. the
mistake in the mind of only one party does not affect the
validity of the contract.
The above five are the vitiating factors to free consent. If the
contract made by any of the above four reason, the contract is
voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. If the agreement
induced by mutual mistake, the agreement would stand void or
cancelled. An agreement can be treated as a valid contract only
when the consent of the parties are free and not under any
undue influence, fear, pressure etc. The consent of the parties
must be genuine and free.
There are five vitiating factors to free consent, however, I would
focus only upon Coercion in this assignment work.
Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines coercion as:
Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit,
any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 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 (45
of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where coercion is
applied.
ILLUSTRATION

3 | Page

A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter

into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Calcutta.
A has employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by
the law of England, and although section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) was not in force at the time when or
place where the act was done.

WHAT IS COERCION?
Coercion is

the

practice

of compelling

person or

manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether

through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or
some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may involve the
actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to
enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm
may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person
being coerced. The term is often associated with circumstances
which involve the unethical use of threats or harm to achieve
some objective.
Coercion may also refer to more subtle means of influence
such as sweet talking, begging, charming, and seduction.
4 | Page

Coercion invalidating a contract need not proceed from a

party to the contract, or be immediately directed against a
person whom it is intended to cause to enter into the contract.
The act or the threat to commit the act should have caused the
party to enter into the contract. The

term cause is not a

term of art but one of science. Nothing can be said to be the

cause of a particular effect, unless it is the proximate and
immediate cause of that effect. When a particular effect is said
to be caused by a particular factor, it must be clearly and
cogently established that the effect is the direct outcome of the
particular cause. Thus, in order for coercion to invalidate a
contract, it has to be instrumental in making the party agree
to the contract.
Any persons set of feasible choices is obtained from the
combination of two elements: the initial endowment (the
perceived initial state of the world, which the chosen actions
are going to affect) and the transformation rules (which state
how any chosen action will change the initial endowment,
according to the persons perception).
It follows that coercion could in principle take place by
purposely manipulating either the transformation rules or the
initial endowment (or both). In practice, however, the detailed
choice reaction of a victim to a change in initial endowment is
generally unpredictable. Hence effective coercion can only be
carried out through manipulation of the transformation rules.
This is done by the credible threat of some injury, conditional
on the victims choice. Often, it involves the actual inflicting of
5 | Page

injury in order to make the threat credible, but it is the threat of

(further) injury which brings about the change in transformation
rules.
Coercion does not remove entirely the victims ability to
choose, nor does it necessarily affect his or her ranking of
potential alternatives. As Roman jurists used to say, Coactus
volui, tamen volui (I willed under coercion, but still I willed).
In the terminology of rational choice theory, coercion does not
remove a persons objective function, but only affects the
constraints under which such function is maximised. Yet, the
purpose of coercion is to substitute ones aims to those of the
victim.

For

this

reason,

many

social

philosophers

have

considered coercion as the polar opposite to freedom.

Various forms of coercion are distinguished: first on the basis of
the kind of injury threatened, second according to its aims and
scope, and finally according to its effects, from which its legal,
social, and ethical implications mostly depend.
There are two categories of acts that commission or the threat
of commission of which would amount to coercion within the
meaning of Section 15 of the Act:
i)
ii)

An act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code of 1860

Unlawful detention or threat of detention of any
property.

6 | Page

ACT FORBIDDEN BY THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE
The words Act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code make it
necessary for the courts to decide whether a given act of coercion is
such as to amount to an offence under the Indian Penal Code of
1860. There has been considerable case law with regard to this
section.
In the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti1, a 13 year old
Hindu widow consented to adopt a boy, when the relatives of the
adopted boy obstructed the removal of her husband until she gave
her consent to the adoption.
The court held that this constituted an offense under Section 297 of
the Indian Penal Code which enacts that whosoever with the
intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or with the
knowledge that the feelings of a person are likely to be wounded,
offers an indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance of
any person assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, is
liable to imprisonment of fine or both. Thus, it was held that the
consent was obtained by coercion within the meaning of Section 15
of the Indian Contract Act.
Mere threat of bringing a criminal charge does not amount to
coercion, as it is not forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. But threat
of bringing a false charge with the object of making another enter
into a contract is coercion.
In the famous Madras case of Ammiraju v Seshamma2 the
question arose whether if a person held out a threat of committing
suicide to his wife and son if they refused to execute a release in his
favor, and the wife and son in consequences of that threat executed
the release, the release could be said to have obtained by coercion
within the meaning of this section. Wallis, C.J., and Seshagiri Aiyar, J.,
answered the question in the affirmative, holding in effect that
though a threat to commit suicide was not punishable under the
Indian Penal Code, it must be deemed to be forbidden, as an attempt
to commit suicide was punishable under the Code (S. 309). Oldfield,
J., answered the question in the negative on the ground that the
present section should be construed strictly, and that an act was not
punishable under the Penal Code could not be said to be forbidden

7 | Page

by that Code.1 That view seemed to be correct. The penal code

forbids only what it declares punishable.
A demand by workers under the Industrial Dispute Act backed by a
threat of Strike being not illegal, the threat of strike would not
amount to coercion3.
Under the language of the section as it stands, a threat to commit an
offence under any law other than the Indian Penal Code 1860, may
not amount to coercion. Recognizing this, the Law Commission of
India had recommend a wider expression to include penal laws other
than the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in its thirteenth report.

UNLAWFUL DETAINING OF PROPERTY

Consent can also be said to be caused by coercion, if it is caused as
a result of unlawful detaining of property or a threat to do so. In the
case of Bansraj Das v. Secretary of State4 , for the purpose of
realising a fine due from a son, the government attached the
property belonging to both him and his father. The payment made
by the father in order to save the property from being sold was held
to have been made under coercion.
A refusal on the part of mortgagee to convey the equity of
redemption except on certain terms is not an unlawful detaining or
threatening to detain any property within the meaning of this
section.
However, refusal by the outgoing agent, whose term expired, to
hand over the account books to the new incoming agent until, the
principal gave him a complete release would amount to coercion. 5
In another illustrative case, where an agent, whose services were
terminated, detained accounts to obtain his release, the court held
that the release was said to have been induced by coercion.

TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANY OTHER

PERSON
11 (1890) ILR 13 Mad 2142 Amiraju v. Seshama, (1917) 41 Mad 33
3 Workmen of Appin Tea Estate v. Presiding officer, Industrial Officer, Assam, AIR 1966 Gau 115:
(1967) II LLJ 371.

8 | Page

The term prejudice used in this section does not imply merely the
emotion of prejudice. Some form of legal injury must follow in order
that a person is said to be prejudiced. When the threat to commit
suicide by a husband caused a wife to release the property, the
court held that the wife was prejudiced. 6

_____________________________

4. Bansraj Das v. Secretary of State AIR 1939 All 373

5. Muttiah Chettiar v. Karupan Chetti, (1927) 50 Mad 786.
6. Amiraju v. Seshama, (1917) 41 Mad 33

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant relying on the defence of coercion should set out all
the facts constituting these invalidating circumstances. A suspicion
or mere probability is not enough to constitute coercion. Thus, in a
contract between two parties where coercion was not the solitary
reason to enter into a contract, there is no burden of proof on the
party threatened to show that but for the threat, no agreement
would have been made.
The burden of proof does not lie on the innocent party to show that
but for the threats, no contract would have been formed. It is for the
party using the alleged threats to establish that the acts of alleged
threats or unlawful pressure contributed nothing to the consent of
the other party to the contract.

COMPULSION OF LAW
Compulsion of law is not coercion under Section 15 and the contract
in the eyes of the law is freely made. The mere fact that the contract
has to be entered into in conformity with and subject to restrictions
imposed by law does not per se impugn on the consensual element
in the contract.
Compulsion of law is not coercion and despite such compulsion, in
the eye of the law the agreement is freely made.

9 | Page

In Andhra Sugars Ltd. V State of Andhra Pradesh 7 , a case of

the exigibility of the sales tax on sale of sugar, the cane-grower
was not bound to offer can to the factory of his area but if he did, the
factory was bound to accept it under the the Andhra Pradesh Sugar
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1961. This was held to be
an agreement not caused by coercion.

______________________________
7. Andhra Sugars Ltd. v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1968 SCC 599

EXTENT OF COERCION UNDER THE ACT

The words of this section are far wider than anything which then
existed in the English authorities; it must be assumed that this was
intended. As the definition stands the coercion invalidating a
contract need not proceed from a party to a contract 8 or be
immediately directed against a person whom it is intended to cause
to enter into the Contract or any member of his household, or affect
his property, or be specifically to his prejudice. This was not so under
the earlier English law on duress The Concept of duress has
however been rapidly evolving and these differences no longer seem
to hold. In fact, duress under English law is now perhaps broader
than coercion as defined under the Act, and has been discussed
later.

10 | P a g e

COMPARISON WITH ENGLISH LAW

The following comparison has been attempted by the madras high
court.
KARUPPAYEE AMMAL V. KARUPPIAH PILLAI, (1987)1 MAD LJ
138
What the Indian law calls, coercion is called in English law duress
or menace. Duress is said to consist in actual or threatened violence
or imprisonment of the contracting party or his wife, parent or child,
by the other party or by anyone in s.15 is much wider and includes
the unlawful detention of property also. Further, coercion may be
committed by any person, not necessarily a party, or his party, or his
parent, wife or child. It may be directed against any person, even
immediate violence and also unnerve a person of ordinary firmness
of mind, these requests are not necessary in Indian law.
___________________________
8.Chuni Lal v. Maula Bakhsh, 161 IC 347: AIR 1936 Lah 6.

Under the English law, actual or threatened violence to the victims

person has long been recognized to amount to duress, 9 but duress
may consist of actual or threatened imprisonment, 10 and now also
includes wrongful threats to property or threat to seize goods, 11 and
wrongful or illegitimate threats to economic interests, where the
victim has no alternative but to submit. 12 The effect of duress is not
to make the act of the victim non-voluntarily, nor does it deprive him
with a choice between evils. 13 The classic case of duress is, not
the lack of will to submit but the victims intentional submission
11 | P a g e

arising from the realization that there is no practical choice open to

him.14
There has developed tremendous jurisprudence around the concept
of duress, especially economic duress. Devising a test for this
concept involves a delicate balancing act for, in a sense, all
contracts are made under pressure- each party threatens the other
that unless his terms are accepted, the other party will not get the
reciprocal benefits under the contract. The test in English law has
been to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate pressures,
and only the latter is said to amount to duress. Threats to commit an
otherwise lawful act are ordinary not duress. Thus, a threat to breach
the contracts in order to reach an agreement as to its variation has
been generally regarded as a legitimate commercial pressure,
especially where this is the result of an unanticipated difficulty or
based on a bona fide and reasonable belief that unless the demand
is met, the party would unable to perform. If however the threat is
immoral or unconscionable, this might be held to constitute
duress.
____________________________________
9. Kesarmal v. Valliappa Chettiar, [1954] 1 WLR 380 (PC).
10. Cumming v. Ince, [1847] 11 QB 112 (woman forcibly taken to lunatic asylum); but see Biffin v. Bignell, (1862) 7 H
& N 877 (distinction between a threat and a mere warning).
11 North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. V. Hyundai Construction Co Ltd., [1978] 3 All ER 1170.
12. Pao On v. Lau Yiu, [1979] 3 All ER 65.
13. Lynch v. DPP, Northern Ireland, [1975] AC 653,690.
14. Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. ITWF, [1983] 1 AC 366, 400 : [1982] 2 All ER 67 (HL)

Thus, an unlawful threat by a trade union to continue the boycott

of a ship;15 a threat to break an existing contract coupled with
12 | P a g e

unreasonable and overwhelming commercial pressure; refusal to

rescue a vessel in distress or those on board save on extortionate
terms; have all been held to be cases involving duress.
The doctrine of economic duress has also been accepted by the
Bombay High Court to be part of Indian law. 16 However to the extent
this decision is seen as an authority importing the doctrine of duress
in Indian Law, its correctness is not free from doubt.

_________________________________
15. Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. ITWF, [1983] 1 AC 366, 400 : [1982] 2 All ER 67 (HL)
16.Dai-Ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd. V. ONGC, AIR 1992 Bom 309 (buyer threatened non-performance to make
seller agree to renegotiated terms)

13 | P a g e

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COERCION AND

DURESS
Coercion in India means committing or threatening to commit
an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Duress, under
Common Law, consists in actual violence or threat of violence,
to a person. It includes doing of 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, like the Indian Penal Code in India.
In India, coercion can also be there by detaining or threatening
to detain any property. In other words, in coercion, an act may
be directed against a person or his 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, may be 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 relative.

14 | P a g e

LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

WITH RESPECT TO COERCION
The 13th report of the Law Commission of India which was chaired
by Shri M C Setalvad contained a segment on Section 15 that is the
definition of coercion. The definition of coercion given in the Indian
Contract Act is not exhaustive. It cannot apply to situations in
modern times where coercion can be induced by very many ways.
Coercion, as already seen, is defined in the Indian Contract Act, as
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.
The phrase any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code is what was
critically examined by the Law Commission. The purpose of the
Indian Penal Code is to create offences and not merely forbid them.
The Indian Penal Code forbids only that which it deems punishable.
There are laws other than the Indian Penal Code performing the
same function.
It has been up to the courts so far to interpret the meaning of the
phrase in question and differentiate between forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code and punishable by the Indian Penal Code. One
such case where this differentiation was made was in the case
Ammiraju v. Seshamma , an intriguing question arose as to
whether a release signed by a wife and son in consequence of a
threat of committing suicide had been obtained by coercion within
15 | P a g e

the meaning of Section 15. The issue here was whether suicide is an
act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the word
forbidden is wider than the term punishable. As an attempt to
commit suicide is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the threat
to commit suicide would also come under the ambit of acts
forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. The dissenting judge was of
the opinion that the section should be construed strictly and that an
act which was not punishable by the Indian Penal Code cannot be
forbidden by it as a penal code forbids only what it punishes.
This kind of interpretation can vary from court to court. Though it
was held in the above case that threat to commit suicide does
constitute coercion within the meaning of Section 15 of the Indian
Contract Act, the section itself has to amended to include a more
comprehensive meaning to the offences, the commission or the
threatening of which, would constitute coercion.
The report suggested the words should be deleted and in place a
wider expression of the offences forbidden by law in India be
included in the Section. In the draft proposal of the amendment
submitted by the Law Commission, they stated that the definition of
coercion be changed as follows:
Coercion is the committing or threatening to commit any
act, when the committing, or threatening to commit such act
is punishable by any law for the time being in force, or the
unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property,
to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention
to causing any person to enter into a contract.

16 | P a g e

CONCLUSION
In this assignment work I have tried to throw light on the concept of
coercion in the context of the Indian Contract Act. Simultaneously I
have also compared it with the position in England.
The concept of Coercion seems fairly simple. In most legal systems,
the use of physical specific coercion by private individuals is a
criminal offence in all cases not involving self-defence or similar
situations. Specific coercion may be used as a legal defence in
criminal cases for acts committed under threat of injury. Similarly,
one may claim the legal nullity of a contract signed under duress.
The picture is less simple for psychological specific coercion, owing
to the general difficulty in finding clear evidence for it.
While analysing whether the Law Commission Report should be
implemented or not, we should remember that the Indian Contract
Act in its first form was enacted in 1872. Though it was enacted in
the 19th century, it has managed to serve its purpose of defining the
general principles of contracts to this day.
The definition of coercion as given in the Indian Contract Act of 1872
is outdated for modern use. It includes within its ambit only offences
which are forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
In the first place, the Indian Penal Code only declares offences
punishable and not forbidden. Secondly, in the present context,
the Indian Penal Code is not the only law that defines and punished
offences in India.

17 | P a g e

Thus, it is my opinion that the definition of coercion should be

updated and the law commission recommendation should be
implements forthwith.
Also the concept of Economic Coercion needs to be properly defined
and laid down as the more and more cases of Economic Coercion is
cropping up but still the position in our country over this topic is still
not very clear.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT BY SIR DINSHAW FARDUNJI
MULLA, LEXIS NEXIS PUBLICATION, ISBN 978-81-8038-673-2
2. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT BY AVATAR
SINGH, (11th Edition) , EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, ISBN 93-5028735-8
3. INDIAN

CONTRACT

ACT

AND SPECIFIC

RELIEF

ACT

BY

POLLOCK & MULLA (13th Edition, 2006)

18 | P a g e

19 | P a g e