Introduction
It is the duty of every legal system to ensure the safety and protection of its citizens, inhabitants, and properties in all aspects. Children, being a vulnerable population, require special protection by law. As they are considered the future of the State, it is important for the State to safeguard them. Each State has its own legal provisions for child protection, and India is no exception. Various laws, including Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Property Laws, and Contract Law, provide for the protection of children and juveniles in India. The law should be such that the problems of the children are known to the society and the law makers for the efficient implementation of the same.
Meaning of Child and Juvenile under Indian Laws
A child is typically a person under the age of puberty or the legal age of majority and unable to maintain itself. According to provisions of various Acts which deals with child it can be said that it is the age of the child which determines as to who is a child. Different Acts have different age determination of child. For instance, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986[1], the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966[2], Minimum Wages Act, 1948[3], and the Dangerous Machines (Regulations) Act, 1983[4] defines ‘child’ as “child means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age”. Again in the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[5] ‘child’ is defined as “child” means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child. Also the section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, provides that "child" means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age;[6]
Juveniles are commonly referred to as teenagers. The term Juvenile is derived from a Latin word “Juvenis” meaning a young person. The term juvenile has been defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as “juvenile” means a child below the age of eighteen years.[7] Again child is also defined under the Act, as “child” means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.[8] Therefore, as per both the definitions it can be said that there is no difference made between a child and a juvenile under this Act[9].
Protection of Child under Indian Laws
The child protection laws in India are framed according to the various constitutional provisions which guarantee children’s rights to safeguard child rights and protect them. Article 21A of the Constitution guarantees the right to free and compulsory elementary education for all children in the age group 6-14 years[10]. Article 24 secures the right to be protected from any hazardous employment until 14 years[11]. Children also have equal rights as all other adult citizens of India. There are also several criminal laws such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860[12], the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[13] and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[14].
There are many statutes in India passed by the Union and the State Governments that deals with children. For instance, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006[15], the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933[16], the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956[17], the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986[18], the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009[19], the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012[20], etc. Apart from these the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872[21] also seeks to protect children.
Protection of Child under Contract Act, 1872
The objective of the law is to protect minors from facing legal consequences and obligations. Generally, it is acknowledged that minors do not possess the cognitive abilities and maturity required to fully comprehend the implications, terms, conditions, and liabilities associated with certain actions. Consequently, the law absolves minors from any responsibilities.
One of the essentials of a valid contract, mentioned in Section 10, of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, is that the parties to the contract should be competent to make the contract. According to Section 11:
"Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject."[22]
It means that the following three categories of persons are not competent to contract :-
- A person who has not attained the age of majority, i.e, one who is a minor.
- A person who is of unsound mind;
- A person who has been disqualified from contracting by some law.
Therefore as per the provision of section 11 of the Contract Act a minor cannot enter into a contract.[23] It means that a person has to be of the age of majority i.e above the age of 18 years for entering into a contract.
It is imperative to take note of the fact that Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act stipulates that any individual who has not yet reached the age of 18 is classified as a minor.[24] This legal precedent was established in the landmark case of Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmadas Ghose.[25]
In this case the court held that a contract by a minor is void ab initio. The benefits that are given to the minor under such contract are to be restored by him. Thus, the Privy Council gave a decision that any contract entered into by a minor is void and the terms of such contract cannot be executed.
Doctrine of Restitution:
According to English law, if a minor has obtained undue benefit in any transaction, he is required to restore back the benefit so received by him, under the equitable doctrine of restitution. Under the doctrine he is asked to restore back the exact things taken by him. It is applicable only to goods or property received by a minor so long as they can be traced, and are still in his possession. Since it is difficult to identify money and to prove whether it is the same money or different one, the doctrine does not apply to money. Even as regards goods or property, if the same have been consumed or transferred and are no more traceable, the doctrine of restitution does not apply there.[26]
According to legal precedent, minors who receive benefits from a contract must return them to the other party if they accurately represented their age at the time of the agreement. Nevertheless, if the minor has already utilized or sold those benefits, they cannot be compelled to return them as it would amount to enforcing a null and void contract.
The court ruled in the case of Leslie Ltd vs Sheil[27] that a minor who misrepresented themselves as an adult and received benefits from a contract cannot be required to return those benefits. Doing so would enforce a void contract and therefore the doctrine of restitution does not apply in this particular case.
It is also important to note that, if a liability of tort arises out of a contract then in such cases also the minor is not liable for that tort.
No Estoppel against a minor
Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, which lays down the law of estoppel is as under:
"Where one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing."[28]
According to the rule contained in Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, if you make a statement today which misleads another person, you are not allowed to deny the statement tomorrow when the question of your liability arises.
The question of estoppel came before the Courts in a number of cases. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the minor misrepresented his age while taking loan, but the fact that the person taking the loan is a minor was known to the money-lender. The Privy Council did not consider it necessary to decide whether Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, was applicable to the present case, because the money-lender was not misled by the false statement by the minor as he was aware of the age of the borrower.
From the various decisions of the different High Courts, we find that the consensus is that the law of estoppel does not apply against a minor. He is allowed to plead minority as a defense to avoid liability under an agreement even though at the time of making the agreement, he falsely stated that he has attained the age of majority.
Minor’s liability for Necessaries
It's been established that a minor cannot make a contract to pay for services or goods. The agreement is deemed void from the beginning, and the minor lacks the capacity to enter into such agreements. However, if a minor is provided with necessities, the person supplying them can be reimbursed. This reimbursement is not based on a contract between the parties but is considered a quasi-contractual obligation. Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act acknowledges "Certain Relations Resembling Those Created by Contract," which includes quasi-contractual relationships.
Section 68 in that Chapter makes a provision for the reimbursement for the necessaries supplied to a minor. The provision is as under:
"If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person."[29]
The case of Sham Charan Mal v. Chowdhry Debya Singh[30] dealt with the situation where a minor received money to defend himself in criminal proceedings related to a charge of dacoity. The minor agreed to a bond and used the borrowed amount for his defense. The court ruled that personal liberty is included in the term "necessaries" under Section 68 of the Contract Act, so the borrowed amount was considered necessary for the minor's situation.
In Kadar Nath v. Ajudhia Prasad,[31] a loan was given to a minor who mortgaged his property to save it from being sold due to a decree. The court held that this loan was necessary for the minor's situation in life, and even though the mortgage was void, the mortgagee still had a right of lien over the property mortgaged by the minor.[32]
Conclusion:
As far as child protection legislation is concerned, there are four main laws in place: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act (2000, amended in 2015), The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (2006), The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (2012), and The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act (1986, amended in 2016). Additionally, the provisions of the Contract Law also aim to protect children and safeguard their interests. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, any contract entered into by a minor is considered void ab initio, and if the minor has benefited from such a contract, the doctrine of restitution applies. Furthermore, if a person provides any necessary items to another, they must be reimbursed.
[1]The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (Act 61 of 1986), s. 2(ii).
[2] The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (Act 32 of 1966), s. 2(b).
[3] The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act 11 of 1948), s. 2(bb).
[4] The Dangerous Machines (Regulations) Act, 1983 (Act 35 of 1983), s. 3(a)
[5] The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( Act 43 of 2005), s. 2(b).
[6] The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (Act 6 of 2007), s. 2(a).
[7] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015(Act 2 of 2016), s. 2(35).
[8] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015(Act 2 of 2016), s. 2(12).
[9] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015
[10] The Constitution of India, art. 21A.
[11] The Constitution of India, art. 24.
[12] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
[13] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
[14] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
[15] The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (Act 6 of 2007)
[16] The Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933 (Act 2 of 1933)
[17] The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956)
[18] The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986(Act 61 of 1986)
[19] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009)
[20] The Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act 32 of 2012)
[21] The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872)
[22] The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872), s. 11.
[23] Supra
[24] The Indian Majority Act, 1875(Act 9 of 1875), s. 3(1)
[25] (1903) 30 Cal 539.
[26] Dr. R. K. Bangia Contract-I 114 ( Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana, 7th Edn, 2017)
[27] (1914) 3 K. B. 607.
[28] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), s. 115.
[29] The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872), s. 68.
[30] I.L.R. (1894) 21 Cal. 872.
[31] (1883) Punjab Record, Case no. 165, p. 522
[32] Dr. R. K. Bangia Contract-I 124 ( Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana, 7th Edn, 2017)
