NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY

AND RESEARCH IN LAW

COERCION

Submitted to: Mr. Mrityunjay Mayank

Submitted By: Aliza

Semester - I
Section -A
Roll no. – 730

Page | 1
INTRODUCTION
“Coercion” is defined 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 agreement1. It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed. It simply means
forcing a person to enter into a contract by adopting unfair means.It is the practice of forcing
another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use
of threats, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force in order to act in the desired way.
An act of compelling a person in such a manner that he doesn’t have any choice rather than
entering into an agreement with the other party.

Coercion includes blackmailing, threatening to kill or beat any person, torture, harming the
family of a person, detaining property.
Example: A threatens B to marry him, or else he will kill her whole family. In this situation,
the consent of B is not free i.e. coercion influences it.

WHAT IS COERCION?

Coercion is the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using

force or threats.It 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. 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. The acts influenced by coercion are voidable,
not void i.e. if the other party whose will is influenced by coercion seems any benefit
in the contract, then it can be enforceable.

1
Section 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Page | 2
Coercion is said to be there where the consent of a person has been caused either by :

1. Committing , or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal

code, or by
2. Unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain any property.2

ESSENTIALS OF COERCION :

 Acts forbidden by 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 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 Setti3, the question before the Madras High Court was
regarding the validity of the adoption of a boy 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. According to Pollock and Mulla, by obstructing the removal of the corpse the
possible offence tried to be committed was under section 297, Indian Penal Code, which
provides punishments to a person for wounding the feelings of the person by offering
indignity to any human corpse. In Chikkan Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshama.4 The
question before the Madras High Court was that 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

2
Avtar Singh, The law of contract, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1978, p. 109

3
I.L.R. (1889) 13 Mad. 214.

4
I.L.R. (1918) 41 Mad. 33

Page | 3
 Code. It was held by Wallis, C.J. and Seshagiri Ayyar, J. that a threat to commit suicide
amounted to commercial within the meaning of section 15 of the Indian Contract Act
and therefore the release deed was voidable. It was observed that the threat to commit
suicide could be considered to be an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code and also the
threat to kill oneself was an act where a person was acting to his own prejudice and also
to the prejudice of his wife and the son, and thus the requirements of section 15 were
satisfied.

 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. For example, if an outgoing agent refuses to hand over the account
books to the new agent until the principal executes release in his favour, it is coercion
as held in Muthiah Chettiar v. Karupanchetti5.

If the detention of property is not unlawful, there is no coercion. Thus, if a mortgagee refuses
to convey the equity of redemption except on the terms dictated by him, there is nothing
unlawful in it and, therefore, no coercion is caused in this case.

 To the prejudice of any other person: Section 15 requires that there should be
committing or threatening to commit, ant 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 also not necessary that the wrongful act
causing coercion should proceed from the party to the contract.

 Forcible dispossession of property under threat is coercion: If a person is

dispossessed of his property under illegal threat that unless he parts with the
possession he would be detained under MISA ( Maintenance of Internal Security),

5
AIR (1927) Mad. 852

Page | 4
 partying with the property under such threat amounts to coercion under section 15.
In Krishan Lal Kalra v. N.D.M.C.6 is an example of persons affected by excesses of
Emergency period proclaimed in 1975.

In this case the plaintiff was given license by the N.D.M.C. (New Delhi Municipal
Committee) to run an open air Restaurant in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The lease
was to expire on 31st May 1978. The plaintiff, who started running the Restaurant
under the name and style “Rumble Open Air Restaurant”, was allegedly thrown out
of the premises after taking forcible possession thereof without due process of law by
the defendant who sent demolition squad with police force on 7th August, 1976.
There was also a threat that the plaintiff would be detained under MISA, if he did not
hand over the possession of the property. The plaintiff alleged that there was coercion
and he filed the present suit claiming damages of Rs. 10 lacs.It was held that a person
is not bound by any act done under duress or coercion. In this case the threat that the
plaintiff would be detained under MISA amounted to coercion.

 Statutory compulsion is no coercion: When a statute requires a contract to be

entered into, the consent in such a case is not deemed to be caused by coercion, undue
influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. In Andhra Sugars Ltd v. State of
Andhra Pradesh,7 if any cane grower offered to sell his sugarcane to a factory in a
certain zone, the factory was bound to accept the offer under the Andhra Pradesh
Sugarcane (Regulation Of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961, and accordingly the
agreement was entered into. It was held that in such a case even though there was a
legal compulsion for the factory to make the agreement, the agreement could not be
said to be entered into by the lack of free consent, and there was no coercion either.8

Hence it can be concluded by making it clear that coercion as thus defined implies a
committing or threatening to commit some act which is contrary to law with fulfilling the
essentials of coercion.

COMPARISON WITH ENGLISH LAW

What Indian law calls coercion, is called Duress or menace in English law. Duress is defined
as threats, violence or constraints or other action used to coerce someone into doing
6
AIR (2001) Delhi 402
7
AIR (1968) S.C. 599
8
R.K.Bangia, Indian Contract Act, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2004, p. 113

Page | 5
something against their will or better judgement. Coercion could be seen as practice of
putting someone under duress. Coercion is the act of forcing , while duress is more the
consequence that happens as a result of coercion. Under English Law, duress must be such
which causes immediate violence to a person having ordinary mental strength but this is not
necessary in case of Indian law.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Coercion is the act of threatening a person, to compel him/her to enter into the
contract and perform the obligation . It involves physical force. It is governed by section 15
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Any benefit received under coercion is to be restored back
to the other party. The party who employs coercion is criminally liable under Indain Penal
Code.

Page | 6