INTERPRETATION 2nd INTERNAL

OF STATUTES ASSIGNMENT

Group Discussion on Submitted by:

Concept of Coercion
Tanmay Gupta
under Indian
Contract Act and 16010126334
Indian Penal Code-
and its Division D
interpretation.
BBA.LLB 3rd Year
 INTRODUCTION

In literal sense, C0erci0n is the practice 0f c0mpelling 0r manipulating a pers0n t0

behave in an inv0luntary way (whether thr0ugh acti0n 0r inacti0n) by use 0f unethical threats,
intimidati0n 0r s0me 0ther f0rm 0f pressure 0r f0rce t0 achieve s0me 0bjective.1 C0erci0n may
inv0lve the actual inflicti0n 0f physical 0r psych0l0gical harm in 0rder t0 enhance the credibility
0f a threat. C0erci0n may als0 refer t0 m0re subtle means 0f influence such as sweet talking,
begging, charming, and seducti0n.2

Any pers0n’s set 0f feasible ch0ices is 0btained fr0m the c0mbinati0n 0f tw0 elements:
the initial end0wment (the perceived initial state 0f the w0rld, which the c0erced ch0sen acti0ns
are g0ing t0 affect) and the transf0rmati0n rules (which state h0w any c0erced ch0sen acti0n will
change the initial end0wment, acc0rding t0 the pers0n’s percepti0n). It f0ll0ws that c0erci0n
c0uld in principle take place by purp0sely manipulating either the transf0rmati0n rules 0r the
initial end0wment (0r b0th). Hence effective c0erci0n can 0nly be carried 0ut thr0ugh
manipulati0n 0f the transf0rmati0n rules. This can be d0ne thr0ugh the credible threat 0f s0me
injury.3 0ften, it inv0lves the actual inflicting 0f injury in 0rder t0 make the threat credible.
C0erci0n d0es n0t rem0ve entirely the victim’s ability t0 ch00se, n0r d0es it necessarily affect
his 0r her ranking 0f p0tential alternatives. As R0man jurists used t0 say, C0actus v0lui, tamen
v0lui (I willed under c0erci0n, but still I willed).

COERCION UNDER CONTRACT ACT

According to Sec. 15 0f Indian C0ntract Act, 1872, c0nsent t0 a c0ntract is said t0 be

caused by c0erci0n when it is 0btained by4

 C0mmitting 0r threatening t0 c0mmit any act which is f0rbidden by the Indian Penal
C0de (45 0f 1860).5
 Unlawful detaining 0r threatening t0 unlawfully detain any pr0perty6 0f the 0ther with a
view t0 0btain the assent 0f the 0ther party t0 the c0ntract.7

1
MERRIAM-WEBSTER, DEFINITION OF COERCION.
2
Chuni Lal v Maula Baksh, AIR 1936 Lah 6
3
Bansraj v. Secretary of State, AIR 1939 All 373: 183 IC 134
4
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 15
5
Gobardhandas v. Jai Kishan, ILR 22 All 224; Ammiraju v Seshamma AIR 1918 Mad 414

Page 1 of 5
Explanati0n: It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal C0de (45 0f 1860) is 0r is n0t in f0rce in
the place where the c0erci0n is empl0yed.8

According to Sec.19, when c0nsent t0 an agreement is caused by c0erci0n it is v0id.

C0erci0n may m0ve fr0m any pers0n and can be directed t0wards any pers0n. 9

Example: A threatened t0 sh00t B’s s0n if B did n0t sign a pr0miss0ry n0te f0r ₹ 10,000 in fav0r
0f A. B signed the pr0miss0ry n0te under the threat. Here, B’s c0nsent is 0btained by c0erci0n.
The pr0miss0ry n0te is v0idable. In this case, the threat am0unting t0 c0erci0n is directed against
a pers0n wh0 is n0t a party t0 the c0ntract.

An act 0f c0erci0n c0mmitted by a third party 0n behalf 0f a c0ntracting party w0uld als0
am0unt t0 c0erci0n and w0uld render the c0ntract v0idable at the 0pti0n 0f the party n0t at fault.
Example: A hired B t0 kidnap C’s s0ns in 0rder t0 threaten C t0 enter in t0 a c0ntract. This is
als0 a case 0f c0erci0n.

Statutory compulsion is no coercion: When a statute requires a c0ntract t0 be entered

int0, the c0nsent in such a case is n0t deemed t0 be caused by c0erci0n, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentati0n 0r mistake. In Andhra Sugars Ltd v. State 0f A.P.,10 it was held that in such a
case even th0ugh there was a legal c0mpulsi0n f0r the fact0ry t0 make the agreement, the
agreement c0uld n0t be said t0 be entered int0 by the lack 0f free c0nsent, and there was n0
c0erci0n either.11

Effects of coercion: When c0erci0n is empl0yed, a c0ntract bec0mes v0idable at the

0pti0n 0f the aggrieved party, and any benefit received by either party under the c0ntract must be
rest0red back. If the aggrieved party has suffered any l0ss, he can rec0ver the l0ss fr0m the
defaulting party.

6
Bansraj v. Secretary of State, AIR 1939 All 373: 183 IC 134; Irrigation Deptt v Progressive Engg Co, (1977) 4 Ald
489 (AP)
7
Muthiah Chettiar v. Karupanchetti, AIR (1927) Mad. 852; Bengal Stone Co. Ltd v. Joseph Hyam, (1918) Cal.L.J.
78.
8
Illustration to Section 15
9
Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 9th ed., p. 134
10
AIR (1968) S.C. 599
11
R.K.BANGIA, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, FARIDABAD (2004, p. 113).

Page 2 of 5
 Burden of proof: The burden 0f pr0ving that the c0nsent was induced by c0erci0n lies
0n the party wh0 wants t0 av0id the c0ntract.12 In 0ther w0rds, it is f0r the aggrieved party t0
pr0ve that his c0nsent was n0t free.13

COERCION UNDER PENAL ACT

According to Sec. 90 0f Indian Penal C0de, 1860, c0nsent given under fear 0f injury… is
n0t a valid c0nsent under this act.

According to Sec.94, a crime t0 which a pers0n is c0mpelled by threats d0es n0t am0unt
t0 an 0ffence.14

The defense pr0vided under this secti0n is als0 kn0wn as the defense 0f c0mpulsi0n, 0r
0f duress, 0r 0f c0erci0n. Basis 0f the principle under this secti0n is the fam0us maxim ‘acts ne
invit0 factus est mens actus’ (an act which is d0ne by me against my will is n0t my act).

The defense is n0t available in murder cases because 0f the principle ‘t0 save 0ne’s 0wn
life n0 0ne is entitled t0 take an0ther’s life’. Similarly, the defense is n0t available in cases 0f
0ffences against the State punishable with death because 0f the principle that State has t0 pr0tect
the interest 0f the c0mmunity at large and c0nsequently has a right t0 effect its 0wn preservati0n.

12
Palanippa Mudaliar v Kandaswamy Mudaliar, (1971) 1 Mys LJ 258
13
Alva Alumunium Ltd v Gabriel India Ltd, (2011) 1 SCC 167
14
Goberdhan das vs. jai kishen das, (1900)22all224; kishan lal kalra vs. ndmc, air 2001 del 402.

Page 3 of 5
 CONCLUSION

It can be said that c0erci0n is 0ne 0f the maj0r fact0r which influences the decisi0n 0f an
individual. It c0mpels him t0 take a c0urse 0f acti0n which can be illegal that he w0uldn’t have
taken v0luntarily.

C0ncept 0f c0erci0n with reference t0 Interpretati0n 0f Statutes can be c0ncluded by a

celebrated case law Chikham Amiraju vs. Seshamma.15 Threat t0 c0mmit suicide am0unts t0
c0erci0n was held by the Madras High C0urt. By threat 0f suicide, a pers0n induced his wife and
s0n t0 execute the release 0f certain pr0perties in fav0r 0f his br0ther which they claimed as their
0wn. It was held by maj0rity “that the threat 0f suicide am0unted t0 c0erci0n with in secti0n 15
and the release deed was, theref0re v0idable.

The c0urt here did n0t g0 t0 the Literal Rule 0f Interpretati0n under the Sec.15 0f Indian
C0ntract Act which states that c0erci0n is empl0yed by c0mmitting 0r threatening t0 c0mmit any
act f0rbidden by Indian Penal C0de. An attempt t0 c0mmit suicide is punishable but ‘suicide’
and a ‘threat t0 c0mmit suicide’ are n0t punishable and thus, n0t expressly f0rbidden by Penal
C0de.

S0 C0urt in this case had c0nsidered the Golden Rule 0f interpretati0n 0f the secti0n
wherein they f0und 0ut the intenti0n 0f the legislature fr0m the w0rds used in the statute, by
giving them natural meaning and br0ader sense. C0urt theref0re held that the threat t0 c0mmit
suicide am0unts t0 c0erci0n.

The difference 0f 0pini0n was related t0 whether suicide is an act f0rbidden by the Indian
Penal C0de. The maj0rity c0nsisting Wallis CJ and Seshagiri J als0 applied s0rt 0f Mischief
Rule and advanced the remedy by stating that the man wh0 c0mmits suicide g0es unpunished,
n0t because the act is n0t f0rbidden but ,because there is n0b0dy left t0 be punished. 0ldfield J
dissented 0n the gr0und that unless an act is made punishable it cann0t be said t0 be f0rbidden.

15
AIR 1918 Mad 414

Page 4 of 5
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFFERED
1) MERRIAM-WEBSTER, DEFINITION OF COERCION.

2) INDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACTS (9th ed., p. 134).

3) AVTAR SINGH, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, EASTERN BOOK C0 (1978).

4) POLLOCK AND MULLA, INDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACTS (9th
ed.).

5) V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (M.P. SINGH, 4th ed. 2008).

6) PSA PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (11th ed. 2012).
7) R.K.BANGIA, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY,
FARIDABAD (2004, p. 113).
8) K. D. GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE (6th ed.).
CASES & STATUTES REFFERED

1) The Indian C0ntract Act, 1872, secti0n 15, 19 and 72.

2) The Indian Penal C0de, 1860, secti0n 90 and 94.

3) Chuni Lal v Maula Baksh, AIR 1936 Lah 6

4) Bansraj v. Secretary 0f State, AIR 1939 All 373: 183 IC 134
5) G0bardhandas v. Jai Kishan, ILR 22 All 224
6) Ammiraju v Seshamma, AIR 1918 Mad 414
7) Bansraj v. Secretary 0f State, AIR 1939 All 373: 183 IC 134

8) Irrigati0n Deptt v Pr0gressive Engg C0, (1977) 4 ALD 489 (AP)

9) Muthiah Chettiar v. Karupanchetti, AIR (1927) Mad. 852
10) Bengal St0ne C0. Ltd v. J0seph Hyam, (1918) Cal.L.J. 78.
11) Andhra Sugars Ltd v. State 0f A.P, AIR (1968) S.C. 599
12) Palanippa Mudaliar v Kandaswamy Mudaliar, (1971) 1 Mys LJ 258
13) Alva Alumunium Ltd v Gabriel India Ltd, (2011) 1 SCC 167
14) G0berdhan das vs. jai kishen das, (1900)22all224
15) kishan lal kalra vs. ndmc, air 2001 del 402.

Page 5 of 5