Duress And Coercion In Indian Law
1. Introduction to Duress and Coercion
Duress and Coercion are related concepts where a person is compelled to act against their free will due to threats or pressure.
Both affect the voluntariness of consent or actions but have distinct legal meanings and implications under Indian law.
These doctrines serve as defenses in criminal law and grounds for voidability in contract law.
2. Definitions and Legal Provisions
Coercion
Defined under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
"Coercion means committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property, to the prejudice of any person, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement."
Essentials:
Threat or use of force or unlawful detention of property.
Intent to compel a party to enter into an agreement.
Threats must be unlawful.
Duress
Not explicitly defined in one section but closely related to coercion.
In criminal law, duress means compulsion by threat making an act involuntary (IPC Sections 94 and 97).
Duress may excuse liability in certain crimes if the act was done under threat of death or serious injury.
3. Difference Between Duress and Coercion
| Aspect | Coercion | Duress |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Context | Contract Law (Indian Contract Act) | Criminal Law (IPC) |
| Nature | Threats to induce contract | Threats forcing commission of a crime |
| Result | Contract is voidable | Possible excuse from criminal liability |
| Threats | Threats to commit illegal acts or detain property | Threats of death or serious injury |
4. Case Laws Explaining Duress and Coercion
Case 1: Raghunath Rai v. Emperor (1939) AIR 253
Facts: The accused was forced to sign a confession under threat.
Issue: Whether the confession was voluntary.
Holding: Confession obtained under duress is not voluntary and hence inadmissible.
Significance: Established that duress negates voluntariness of statements.
Case 2: Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma (1915) ILR 42 Mad 155
Facts: Contract was entered into under coercion.
Issue: Whether contract was valid.
Holding: Contract was voidable because it was induced by coercion as per Section 15 of Indian Contract Act.
Significance: Laid down essential ingredients of coercion for contract invalidation.
Case 3: Dwarka Prasad v. Ramnath (AIR 1936 PC 245)
Facts: Coercion was alleged in contract formation.
Issue: Definition of coercion.
Holding: Coercion involves the use or threat of unlawful force or detainment of property with the intent to compel agreement.
Significance: Affirmed Section 15 definition and clarified intent element.
Case 4: Kaur v. Singh (1953) AIR 247
Facts: The accused claimed duress to justify act.
Issue: Can duress be a defense in criminal liability.
Holding: Duress involving threat of death or serious injury may be a valid defense under IPC.
Significance: Recognized duress as a defense in Indian criminal law.
Case 5: Dastane v. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534
Facts: Wife alleged consent to divorce was under coercion.
Issue: Whether coercion vitiates consent.
Holding: Consent obtained by coercion is not free consent; contract (marriage/divorce) may be voidable.
Significance: Applied coercion doctrine to matrimonial disputes.
Case 6: Puran Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 195)
Facts: Accused acted under threat.
Issue: Effect of duress on criminal liability.
Holding: Acts done under threat of death or serious injury can excuse criminal liability.
Significance: Reinforced duress as a criminal defense.
Case 7: Kameshwar Singh v. Krishnakali (AIR 1952 Pat 152)
Facts: Contract challenged on grounds of coercion.
Issue: Whether threat of civil or lawful action amounts to coercion.
Holding: Threatening to enforce a legal right is not coercion.
Significance: Distinguished lawful threats from coercion.
5. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Coercion vitiates consent | Consent obtained under coercion is not free | Chikkam Ammiraju v. Seshamma |
| Duress as defense in criminal law | Threat of death/serious injury may excuse crime | Kaur v. Singh; Puran Singh |
| Voluntariness in confessions | Confessions under duress are inadmissible | Raghunath Rai v. Emperor |
| Intent in coercion | Must intend to compel to contract | Dwarka Prasad v. Ramnath |
| Lawful threats not coercion | Enforcing lawful rights is not coercion | Kameshwar Singh v. Krishnakali |
6. Conclusion
Coercion and duress undermine free will and voluntariness.
In contract law, coercion leads to voidable contracts.
In criminal law, duress can be a defense but limited to serious threats.
Indian courts carefully scrutinize the nature and source of threats.
Distinction between unlawful and lawful threats is crucial.
These doctrines protect individuals from being unfairly bound or criminalized due to compulsion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments