In Madhyamam Broadcasting v. Union of India & ors, the Supreme Court decided that the State cannot claim complete immunity from the disclosure of materials essentially by asserting the information related to national security. The idea of national security does not enable the principles of natural justice to be suspended, and the Court shall be the appropriate authority to determine whether the request for non-disclosure has a proper and suitable linkage to the claim for national security.
FACTS:
In 2011, the Ministry of Home Affairs granted the appellant Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) “MediaOne” security clearance for 10 years of operation. However, within six years, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notice to show cause to MBL, ordering the security clearance to be revoked. Furthermore, the respondent refused to renew the license based on national security, but the specific reasons were not disclosed.
To contest the MIB’s order “revoking” Media One’s permission to uplink and downlink the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellants brought an action under Article 136 of the Constitution. Based on the information provided to the court in a sealed cover by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitions filed by MBL and other respondents, stating that license revocation may be necessary when constitutional considerations are prevalent. Following this, the appellants filed an appeal with India’s Supreme Court.
CONTENTIONS:
Appellant’s Contention
The appellant’s counsel asserted that MIB’s revocation of the permission granted to uplink and downlink the channel, Media One, was unconstitutional. Only the granting of permission to operate a channel and not the renewal of existing permission are subject to the requirement of security clearance. Even if it goes beyond the logical limitations on press freedom outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it cannot be denied. The restrictions outlined in Article H(2) must be read in conjunction with Section 4(6) of the Republications Act of 1995 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act of 1995 to determine whether or not security clearance will be granted or denied.
The security clearance was not revoked between 2011 and 2022, but the renewal should have been granted if the show cause notice did not allege any violation of the terms of the agreement. By providing information in a “sealed cover,” the Union of India violated the principles of an open court and party fairness. The respondent only stated that the material was sensitive and that the denial was made in the interests of national security and no reason was disclosed for the reasons for such denial by the respondents.
Respondent’s Arguments
Mr. K. M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, representing each of the respondents, argued that MIB was justified in revoking the permission given to Media One because security clearance is a prerequisite for license renewal. The Centre asserted that judgments in the case Ex-Army Men’s Protection Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2014) and Digi Cable and Network (India) Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2019) have already established that the natural justice principle shall not be applicable in case of natural security.
ISSUES:
Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines;
Whether rejecting a license renewal and the decisions made by the Division Bench of the High Court infringed the appellants’ procedural rights under the Constitution.
Whether the order refusing renewal of license was an arbitrary restriction on the appellant’s right to freedom of speech and expression.
JUDGEMENT:
Justices CJI D.Y. ChandraChud and Justice Hima Kohli made up the two-judge panel that delivered the decision. Granting blanket immunity to the reports of all the investigative agencies from disclosure is negating to a transparent and accountable system, and these reports have a deeper impact on decisions affecting the life, liberty, and profession of individuals and entities.
Thus, it is possible to obstruct the release of any investigative reports in any way. Even when national security concerns are used to justify the withholding of information, the courts should still take a less rigorous course of action.
To fairly exclude materials after a successful public interest immunity claim, courts should take the recourse of redacting confidential portions of the sealed cover document and providing a summary of the document’s contents.
The Court continued by saying that it can still examine whether the State’s refusal to disclose has any connection to national security although it is acknowledged that confidentiality and national security are both respectable objectives. Referring to the Pegasus case (ML Sharma v. Union of India), it was stated that the courts would not take a “hands-off” stance simply because national security claims were made.
In the case of “The Chairman & Managing Director City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. V. R, Chandramohan“, the apex court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is on the aggrieved party, and in the present case, the respondent-aggrieved was not able to prove that there was any deficiency in service.
FACTS:
The present appeal was from the order dated 01.02.2007 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Chennai hereinafter “National Commission.” The National Commission confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai “State Commission.” The facts behind the case are that the respondent here was a complainant against the appellants before the State Commission for a deficiency in service on the side of banks. The respondent is a Managing Director of “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd” and has its office in Chennai. Shri R. Thulasiram and Shri R. Murali were the other directors of the same company. An NRI named Ravindra sent two drafts one for 5 lakhs and another one for 3 lakhs INR. On checking out, the respondent found that the drafts have not been credited to his account. Later the respondent came to know that appellant No. 2 was presented and the same was paid to the City Union Bank, Ram Nagar Branch. The respondent requested that appellant No. 2 to re-credit the amount to his account. Respondent found that another account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” is being operated and the drafts were credited into that account. He thereafter filed a complaint in the State Commission and was decided in the favour of the complainant by granting him rupees 8 lakhs along with one lakh as compensation. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the appeal was filed in the National Commission and was dismissed by the National Commission.
CONTENTIONS:
Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants contended that both the Commissions had erred while giving Judgement and Order in this case as there was no fault or imperfection from the side of the Bank and there was no deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He relied on cases “Ravneet Singh Bagga V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr. ” and “Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Anr. V. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Ors” that the complaint was not even maintainable before the State Commission and the respondent had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. He also contended that drafts were issued in the name of “D-Cube Construction” only.
Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent contended that two forums had consistently held the appellants liable for the deficiency in service. He further added that the banks are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. He further relied on the cases “Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation V. State Bank of India and Ors.” and “Indian Overseas Bank V. Industrial Chain Concern.”
JUDGEMENT:
In the current case, the main issue was that was there any deficiency in service as required by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in answer to this question the Court held that there was any willful neglect in deficiency in service or imperfection or shortcoming. The Court relied on the appellants’ case of Bagga. The court said that since some disputes were among the director, therefore, the bank cannot hold them liable if they acted bona fide and followed the due procedure. The Court further added that the burden to prove is on the aggrieved party and here the respondent was unable to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence the order of the National Commission and State Commission was set aside.
Yellow Wire Consulting is looking for professionals with CS + LL.B. qualifications in Delhi. The candidate should have 7–10 years of experience.
About the Organization
YELLOW WIRE CONSULTING (YWC) derives its inspiration from the concept of “Yellow Wire,” which provides a protective path for a successful circuit’s electric current. Likewise, YWC offers to provide strategic advice and support services exclusively to legal organizations that enable them to achieve their business goals. With a cumulative team experience of more than two decades in the Indian legal industry, we have assisted our clients in developing performing teams, high-quality leadership and building organizational development strategies to achieve business objectives.
Roles and Responsibilities
Knowledge of general corporate laws, including the Companies Act, 2013; Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; Competition Act, 2002, Indian Contracts Act, 1872, Societies Act, FCRA, etc
Knowledge of laws, including Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) laws, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulations, Industrial and Labour Law(s)
Good drafting skills and ability to independently formulate opinions
Experience in conducting due diligence, audits, and drafting agreements
Experience in handling matters under I & B Code 2016
Experience in representing clients in negotiation meetings, etc.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Panda Law is a full-service law firm. Our practice encompasses the full gamut of commercial laws including transaction advisory, intellectual property, technology law advisory, regulatory and licensing, litigation and alternate dispute resolution. Panda Law has offices in New Delhi, Noida and Guwahati.
Internship Period
April, May, and June
Area of Practice
IP Prosecution and Litigation team in Delhi.
Requirements
Knowledge and interest in IP laws would be preferred.
Must have fluency in English.
The candidate, if selected, will have to start work from July 2023 with a probation period of three (3) months after such selection.
The candidate must be comfortable staying in Delhi-NCR. Our office is in Noida.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Lexpar Cahmbes is a South Delhi-based Law Firm handling litigation in High Court and District Courts, Delhi looking for eligible interns for their firm.
Roles and Responsibilities
Attending court hearings
Drafting petitions
Research work
Tenure
One (1) month or more
Perks
Courtroom exposure
Internship Certificate
Expenses shall be reimbursed
Tea/Coffee
How to apply?
Interested candidates may send their resumes to lexparchambers@gmail.com or What’s App at +91 8860736866
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
VSP Legals is primarily a law firm dedicated to handling matters in the Delhi High Court Supreme Court, in addition to matters before the trial courts involving the application of the PC Act, PMLA, Benami Properties, and other allied laws.
About the Internship
Researching various aspects of the law
Preparing briefing notes for seniors
Assisting the seniors/senior counsels
Working on drafting
Appearing in the court alongside our associates/seniors
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Established in the Suburbs of Mumbai, they are a full-service law – firm and one of the fastest-growing legal firms in India. Their firm is built upon the ideology of excellence and their dedication to achieving superior proficiency in everything we do. We take pride in delivering the best of our services to aid and facilitate our clients at their best.
Experience
Fresher/ 0-1 year
Area Of Practice
Corporate Law, IPR law, Labour Law, Commercial Law, ADR
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The Chamber primarily focuses in civil litigation before Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, National Company Law Tribunal, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Debt Recovery Tribunal, various District Courts of Delhi.
Job Position
Junior Advocate
PQE
1 to 3 Years
Location
Defence Colony and Noida
Vacancy
One (1)
Eligibility and Responsibilities
The candidate must hold a bachelor’s degree in law.
The candidate must have good research and drafting skills.
The candidate will be responsible for assisting in drafting, researching, and appearances in various Courts in Delhi.
Candidates having experience in handling NCLT and NCLAT matters will be preferred.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
GL PAREEK CHAMBERS OF LAW is a Law Chamber dedicated to handling all legal matters on Civil, Criminal, Business, Commercial, Corporate, Arbitration, Labor & Service subjects in law, in all courts as well as Tribunals in Delhi and Rajasthan. An individualized service by members with decades of experience ensures total satisfaction to the clients.
Mode of Internship
Online
Internship Duration
July 2023
Who can apply
Any law student interested in and/or possessing prior experience in International disputes, insolvency, environmental law, or commercial litigation may apply.
Stipend
A basic stipend will be provided depending upon work + bonus (based on performance). Since this is an online internship, a conveyance allowance will not be provided.
Deadline
On or Before 24th April 2023
Application Procedure
Interested candidates may apply at glplawchambers@gmail.com with the heading “Online Internship- July 2023.”
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The capacity to contract is a crucial aspect of contract law, which refers to the ability of a person to enter into a legally binding agreement. In other words, it is the legal competence or power of an individual or entity to enter into a contract that creates enforceable rights and obligations between the parties involved.
To be bound by a contract, the parties must have the legal capacity to agree. This means that they must have the mental capacity and legal status required to form a legally binding contract. The law recognizes that certain individuals or entities may not have the necessary capacity to enter into a contract, and therefore, any agreement they make may not be legally binding.
For example, minors, individuals with mental incapacities, and individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol may not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract. In such cases, any contract they enter into may be deemed void or unenforceable. Similarly, corporations and other legal entities must also have the capacity to contract. This means that they must have the legal authority and power to enter into a contract, as well as the necessary authorization from their board of directors or shareholders.
Overall, the capacity to contract is a fundamental element of contract law, as it ensures that contracts are entered into freely and voluntarily by parties who have the legal competence and power to be bound by them.
WHO IS A MINOR?
According to Section 3[1] of the Indian Majority Act, of 1875, an individual is considered to have achieved the age of majority once they turn 18 years old, with the exception of two scenarios
If a guardian has been appointed for a minor’s person or property under the Guardians and Wards Act, of 1890, then the minor will remain a minor until they complete the age of 21 years.
If a Court of Wards has assumed the superintendence of a minor’s property, then the minor will also remain a minor until they complete the age of 21 years, even if they have already turned 18 years old.
Under the act, minors enjoy a privileged position whereby they can bind others to contracts, but cannot themselves be held accountable for any breaches. This means that a minor cannot be held personally responsible for any wrongdoing they may commit.
CAN MINORS ENTER INTO A CONTRACT?
According to Section 11[2] of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872, it is explicitly prohibited for a minor to enter into a contract. This prohibition means that any contract entered into by a minor, regardless of whether the other party was aware of their age, will be considered void-ab-initio, or invalid from the outset. This means that even if a minor is just one day away from turning 18, they will still be considered a minor in the eyes of the law, and any contracts they enter into will be deemed void.
Let’s take an example to understand the legal concept of minors and contracts;
In this case, Mr D, a minor, mortgaged his house for Rs.20,000 to a moneylender, who paid him only Rs.8,000. Subsequently, Mr D filed a lawsuit to set aside the mortgage agreement.
The court held that as per Section 11 of the act, a minor is not capable of entering into a contract, and any contract entered into by a minor is void. Therefore, the mortgage agreement between Mr D and the moneylender was void-ab-initio, as Mr D was a minor at the time of the agreement. The court further held that since the contract was void, Mr D was not liable to repay the moneylender any amount of the mortgage. The court allowed Mr D’s request to set aside the mortgage agreement, and the moneylender was not entitled to claim any rights on the property mortgaged by Mr D.
It is a well-established legal principle that minors are generally unable to enter into contracts, given their lack of legal capacity. However, there are two notable exceptions to this rule;
CONTRACTS FOR NECESSARIES
These are goods and services that are necessary for the minor’s support and maintenance. In such cases, a minor can enter into a contract for necessities, and the contract will be binding on the minor to the extent that it is reasonable and necessary.
CONTRACTS OF BENEFICIAL NATURE
This type of contract is entered into for the benefit of the minor and is therefore binding on the minor. Examples of such contracts may include contracts for education or to advance the minor’s business interests. It is important to note that in both cases, the contracts must be entered into for the benefit of the minor in order to be legally enforceable. These exceptions to the general rule regarding minors and contracts serve to protect the best interests of minors and ensure that they can enter into necessary and beneficial agreements. The principle that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract has been firmly established in various landmark cases. One such notable case is Mahori Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose[3], where the court held that a minor’s contract is void ab initio and unenforceable, even if the minor has misrepresented their age or misled the other party into believing that they were of age. The case has been widely cited and has played a pivotal role in shaping contract law in India, reaffirming the principle that minors cannot be held liable for obligations under a contract and can seek to have the contract set aside if necessary.
BENEFICIARY TO A CONTRACT
It is recognized that a minor can serve as a promisee or beneficiary in a contract and that a contract that is advantageous to a minor can be enforced by them. Notably, there are no limitations on a minor serving as a beneficiary, such as in the role of a payee or promisee within a contract. In light of these considerations, it follows that a minor possesses the ability to purchase real property and may initiate legal action to recover possession of the property after tendering payment for its purchase.
RESTITUTION
Where a minor has received benefits under a contract, he is bound to make restitution or return the benefits received. For instance, if a minor enters into a contract to purchase a car and has paid some amount of money, the seller is required to return the money to the minor and take back the car. If a promissory note is executed in favour of a minor, they have the right to enforce it accordingly.
Furthermore, a minor who has extended a loan to someone and experiences a refusal by the borrower to repay the loan based on the voided agreement has the entitlement to reclaim the loaned funds. In a legal context, these principles are crucial for contracts in which minors are involved. It is important to note that this legal principle regarding the capacity of minors in contracts has been demonstrated in various legal cases. For instance, the case of General American Insurance Co v/s Madanlal Sonulal[4] illustrates how a minor was able to recover insurance funds after a loss, despite the fact that the goods in question had been insured on behalf of the minor. Such cases serve to affirm the legal rights and entitlements of minors in contractual matters.
NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST MINOR
The legal principle of estoppel is intended to stop a person from arguing something or asserting a right that refutes what they formerly said or agreed to by law. However, it is important to note that this principle does not apply to minors in the context of contractual agreements. Specifically, an infant or minor is not estopped from setting up the defence of incompetence due to minority. This is because the law of contract is designed to protect minors from incurring contractual liability, given their limited legal capacity. As such, the defence of estoppel cannot be used against minors in contractual matters.
In situations where a minor misrepresents their age and induces another party to enter into a contract with them, the minor cannot be held liable for the resulting contract. Specifically, no estoppel can be asserted against a minor in such cases. This means that the minor cannot be prevented from pleading their infancy as a defence in order to avoid the contractual obligation.
This is because the law recognizes the limited legal capacity of minors and aims to protect them from the consequences of their contractual agreements. As such, a minor cannot be held responsible for a contract that they entered into while still legally considered a minor, regardless of any misrepresentation that may have occurred. Ultimately, the principle of no estoppel against a minor serves to safeguard the rights and interests of minors in contractual dealings.
According to the ruling in Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolom Chettiar (1915 Madras H.C.)[5], “There is a clear statutory provision that minor being incompetent to contract is incapable of incurring any liability for any debt, the law of estoppel cannot overrule this provision to make him liable.” This statement emphasizes that minors are not legally responsible for debts incurred through contracts and that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to make a minor liable for a contractual debt. The ruling underscores the importance of protecting minors in contractual matters and ensuring that they are not unfairly subjected to legal liabilities.
RATIFICATION BY A MINOR
Ratification refers to the act of confirming or validating a contract that was entered into while the person was a minor, after they have attained the age of majority. Once a minor attains majority, he or she has the option to either affirm or disaffirm the contract. If the minor chooses to affirm or ratify the contract, then the contract becomes binding and enforceable. By doing so, the minor becomes bound by the terms of the contract and can be held liable for any breach of the contract. It is essential to note that once a contract has been ratified, the right to disaffirm the contract is lost and cannot be exercised again. Ratification can be expressed or implied, and it can be done through words or actions. For example, if a minor purchases a car and continues to use it after attaining the age of majority, then it can be considered an implied ratification of the contract.
VOIDABLE AT THE OPTION OF A MINOR
In cases where a minor enters into a contract that is not for necessaries or of a beneficial nature, the contract is considered voidable at the option of the minor. This means that the minor has the option to either ratify the contract or repudiate it. If the minor chooses to repudiate the contract, then he or she is not bound by the terms of the contract and is not liable for any breach of the contract.
This provision is based on the understanding that minors are not legally competent to enter into binding contracts. Therefore, if a minor is to be held responsible for a contract, it must be a contract that is for necessaries or of a beneficial nature, or one that has been ratified after the minor has attained the age of majority. If a minor decides to repudiate a contract, he or she must do so before attaining the age of majority. Once the minor attains the age of majority, he or she can no longer repudiate the contract. If the minor does not repudiate the contract before attaining the age of majority, then the contract will be considered valid and enforceable.
It is important to note that if the minor ratifies the contract after attaining the age of majority, then the contract becomes binding on the minor, and he or she can be held liable for any breach of the contract. Therefore, it is essential for minors to carefully consider the consequences of their actions when entering into contracts, and to seek legal advice if necessary.
CONCLUSION
It is crucial to recognize that strict rules must be applied to contracts made by minors. It is often questioned why a minor who is one day away from attaining majority and has committed a breach in the contract should get away with it. However, it is important to understand that the law exists to provide a reliable framework to protect individuals’ rights when they have been infringed. Minors are considered to lack the capacity to make informed decisions as they are not yet fully accustomed to the complexities of the real world. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that minors are provided with adequate protection until they reach the age of majority. By adhering to these strict rules, we can create a consistent legal system that protects everyone’s interests, including minors who may be vulnerable in contractual relationships.
Endnotes:
The Majority Act, 1875, Act No. 9 of 1875
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act No. 9 of 1875
Mahori Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose, UKPC 12, (1903) LR 30 IA 114 (India).
General American Insurance Co v/s Madanlal Sonulal, (1935) 37 BOMLR 461, 158 Ind Cas 554 (India).
Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolom Chettiar, (1914) 26 MLJ 612 (India).
This article is authored by Sohini Chakraborty, a first-year law student at RGNUL Patiala.
