The doctrine of public policy; agreements opposed to public policy

The doctrine. The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy, and such an agreement is void (s. 23). The law limits freedom of contract on grounds of public policy only where the good of the community requires it.

Agreements opposed to public policy, grouped by the public interest each would harm:

The administration of justice

• Corrupting a judge: an agreement meant to make a judge or other judicial officer act partially or corruptly.
• Stifling prosecution: an agreement to drop criminal proceedings already begun, in return for a benefit; no one may make a trade of an offence. An agreement to drop proceedings for an offence the law allows to be compounded is valid.
• Maintenance and champerty: maintenance is financing or otherwise supporting someone else's suit in which one has no interest; champerty is doing so for a share of what the suit recovers. In India both are valid unless unreasonable and unjust to the other side, or done from a malicious motive such as gambling in litigation.

The State and public service

• Trading with the enemy: trade, without a licence from the Government of India, with a person who owes allegiance to a government at war with India; it would weaken the State in wartime.
• Trafficking in public offices and titles: money paid for a public appointment, or for a public honour, because public posts should go to the best qualified person and not be bought.

The market and the family

• Creating a monopoly: an agreement whose object is to establish a monopoly.
• Marriage brokerage: an agreement to negotiate a marriage for a reward; a bureau that only supplies information, without negotiating for reward, is outside the rule.