Triple talaq law

After the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq or pronouncing talaq inboxed a single sitting as void, the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)Act or the Triple Talaq Act. Under the provisions of this Act, triple talaq is void and illegal and the marriage subsists even after its pronouncement. If a husband pronounces irrevocable triple talaq or talaq in a single sitting, he will be punished with a term upto 3 years and fine. The wife is entitled to get maintenance for herself and her children. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable, hence, the police has a right to Arrest and investigate even if the wife does not make a complaint.
The Act in its present form is open to great misuse. Firstly, Muslim marriage is a civil contract, and a breach of it cannot amount to a criminal offence. Again, if a husband is imprisoned for pronouncing triple talaq, then it closes all doors of reconciliation between the couple and the marriage would subsequently end. Thirdly, in families where the husband is the sole breadwinner, imprisonment would lead to the wife and children without any source of income as he cannot earn and provide for them. Fourthly, there are chances that any person with malafide intent can complain against the husband and land him in prison and thereby break a family.
The Act does not give Muslim women any new rights. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, already has provisions for the maintenance of wife and children. The Act is subject to grave misuse and does not protect the interests of Muslim women, rather, it can add to her woes.

Marriage cannot denude a woman of her civil rights

Recently, while hearing the case of a Parsi woman who was denied the right to perform her parents' last rites because she had married a Hindu, the Supreme Court while overruling the order of Bombay High Court, observed that marriage does not strips a woman of her civil rights. The Court observed that the religion of the wife does not merge into that of her husband after marriage. Marriage does not mean that a woman mortgages herself to her husband. Her religion does not merge with that of her husband, only she, on her own volition can give up her religion. The Court observed that when a man who marries outside of his religion is not denied any civil rights then the same should be applicable for the woman as well. The Court also observed that 'the Special Marriage Act was enacted so that a man and a woman professing different faiths can marry and retain their religious identity after marriage. There is no question of merger of woman's religion with that of her husband's. Only she on her own volition can give up her religion..' The Supreme Court in the instant case told the Valsad Zoroastrian Trust to shun the rigidity and understand the emotions of a child towards her parents and reconsider its decision.

Artificial insemination

When there are issues relating to the husband being impotent or carrying genetic disorders, the couple may resort to artificial insemination(AI) to get a child. When the sperm from husband is used it is called artificial insemination homologous(AIH) while in case of donor it is called artificial insemination donor (AID) or heterologous artificial insemination. In case of a donor, the donor must be under the age of 40 years, unknown to both the wife and husband and similar should not know the wife and the husband. he should have children of his own and should be biologically and genetically satisfactory. Before the physician undertakes to inseminate a woman, it should be established that there is no bar to a woman conceiving, that her husband is sterile or there is risk of his passing on hereditary diseases to the child if he fathers a child. The court should not deny the legitimacy when consent to the technique of artificial insemination was expressed or implied by the consent of the husband. There is no bar to either single, divorced women or lesbian couples for being given AID, however, in these cases the child would be deemed to illegitimate.
Legal implications
(1) where the husband is impotent, use of AIH does not amount to consummation of marriage.
(2) as a single donor can father a large number of children, there can be consanguineous marriages in the future.
(3) AID does not amount to adultery as there is no intercourse between the wife and the donor.
(4) there should not be any segregation of XX/XY chromosomes for AI.

Artificial insemination

Rape of minor wife

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines rape as a sexual intercourse either without the consent of a woman or with her consent which was obtained by either by putting her in fear, or when she was intoxicated or unsoundness of mind or if she is under the age of sixteen or is under the mistaken impression that the man is her husband. The exception to the section provides that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife does not amount to rape except when she is under the age of fifteen years.
The given exception created a lacuna in cases of minor wives who were between the ages of fifteen and eighteen years. If a man had sexual intercourse with his minor wife against her will, it did not constitute the offense of rape if she was above the age of fifteen years. The Supreme Court has recently increased the age of eighteen years for the wife, below which the man would be considered to have raped his wife, if he has sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent.
The Court has observed that all instances of sexual intercourse with a minor wife would constitute the offense of rape whether with or without her consent. A child does not lose her right to decline sex to her husband just because she is married. The order of the Apex Court is laudable as it can be a step in furtherance of preventing child marriages and may be a step towards declaring them void ab initio.

Law relating to refugees

The present day world is faced with a challenge of having refugees from various asian and African countries who are fleeing persecution. The right to seek asylum has been recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 14 which states that everyone has a right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, provided it is not prosecution arising genuinely due to non political crimes or from acts contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, describes and lays out the various rights of refugees and duties of the sheltering nations. Article 1 gives right to seek asylum from persecution arising due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group or political opinion in a country other than the one of his nationality and unwillingness to return there. However, the provisions cease to apply if he voluntarily returns to his country of nationality, or voluntarily reacquires nationality or acquires a new nationality, or if he voluntarily reestablishes himself in his country of nationality or prior residence, or if due to change in circumstances, he can no longer to refuse to avail protection of his country or is able to return to the country of his prior residence. The provisions of the Convention do not apply if he has committed serious crimes against peace or war crimes or he has committed serious non political crimes or is guilty of acts contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
Article 3 prohibits member states from discriminating on the grounds of religion, race or country of origin.
Article 4 gives the person seeking asylum to practice his religion and give religious teaching to his children.
Article 16 gives the refugees right to free access to courts in the country of asylum. The asylum seeker has a right to enter into a wage earning employment (Article17) as well as self employment. (Article 18)
Article 20 provides that where a system of rationing exists, the refugees shall be given the same rights as the nationals Article 22 gives refugees same access to elementary education as the nationals.
Article 26 gives there freedom of movement within the country of seeking shelter. Article 27 provides that the country has to issue identity papers to a refugee not having valid travel documents. Article 28 requires the country to issue travel documents for the refugee to travel outside the country of shelter.
Article 31 provides that the refugees who have entered a country unlawfully shall not be punished if they present themselves for registration within reasonable time. Article 32 prohibits the States from expelling refugees from their Territory except on the ground of public order or national security. Article 33 prohibits returning a refugee to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group or public opinion.
Article 34 provides that the Contracting States should make provisions for the early assimilation and naturalization of the asylum seekers.
The member States are required to provide asylum to anyone who wants to escape persecution and also to provide him with facilities to lead a productive life. They cannot return them to the country where they are facing persecution and their life or liberty is endangered instead the contracting States are required to provide a safe haven to the asylum seekers.

Right to privacy

The Supreme Court unanimously observed that the right to privacy is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution and is absolute in nature, it cannot be suspended even during emergency. While declaring the right to life to be a fundamental right, the various judges also observed that the government has no right to dictate what a person can eat or wear. They also observed that the right to privacy covers all aspects of human life and relations including their sexual orientation.
The judgement will have an effect on other legal issues like decriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, linking of aadhaar cards and making them mandatory, the government control over what is published over social media as well as the DNA profiling bill.
By covering sexual orientation in the purview of privacy, the Court has laid down the foundation for decriminalizing homosexuality and sought to protect the rights of the LGBT community. The Court observed that the issue of making aadhaar card mandatory which involves taking finger print and retina scan of individuals, will be taken over by another bench. Critics of aadhaar card have observed that by keeping a person's information in the digital database makes it vulnerable to be leaked by a cyber attack. Freedom over the social media is covered under freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and is subject to restrictions under Article 19(2) but how much can the government read those posts will be judged by the rulings of the instant case. The DNA profiling Bill,2017, seeks to establish a DNA bank where the samples from criminals, unclaimed dead bodies, volunteers will be kept. The Bill seeks to help tracing of missing persons easy but it can encroach upon a person's privacy by keeping all his information in the government database. By covering a person's food habits, the present judgement hits at the government's beef ban.
While the order has to be lauded as a need of the hour to protect the citizens from intrusions in their private life, by making the right absolute, it can hinder the intelligence agencies seeking to control terrorist activities or anti national activities. Still, it is an important step towards protecting citizens from government scrutiny over their private life and choices.

Triple talaq

Talaq ul biddatt, is the practice whereby the muslim husband divorces his wife by the pronouncement of talaq in a single sitting. It is irrevocable and does not grant time for reconsideration. Talaq ul biddat or triple talaq as it is often called, does not have any source in the Quran or even in the Sunnat of the Holy Prophet, rather it was legalized during the period of the second calph, Umar. It is not recognized under many sects of muslims including the Shias. The Hanafi school of Sunni law recognizes the legality of this form of talaq but considers it sinful.
The Supreme Court by a majority of 3-2 held that Section 2 of the Shariat Act, 1937, as far as it covers the practice of triple talaq or talaq ul biddat is void as being arbitrary. The majority view held that since this form of pronouncing talaq does not give any chance of reconsideration or arbitration between the parties, it is arbitrary in nature and hence void. The minority view held that the practice of triple talaq is not against the principles enshrined under Articles 14, 15 or 21, it is covered under the protection of Article 25 as not being hit even by the exceptions of public order, health or morality, but it considered issuing an injunction for a period of six months during which the Parliament should pass a law covering the issue.

The right to abort

In India, it is illegal to abort a fetus and the circumstances under which a pregnancy can be terminated are governed by the terms of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Section 3 of the Act provides that where the term of pregnancy is less than 12 weeks then if it is the opinion of one medical practitioner and where it is longer than 12 weeks but less than 20 weeks and two medical practitioners are of the opinion that the pregnancy may be:
(1) harmful to the life of the mother or cause her grave mental or physical injury
(2) the child that will be born would have such physical or mental abnormality that it will be handicapped
(3) the pregnancy is a result of rape (explanation 1 puts it under the category of mental injury to the mother)
(4) the pregnancy is a result of failure of contraceptive methods (explanation 2 puts it under the category of injury to mental health)
the pregnancy can be terminated at a hospital established or maintained by the government or any place approved by the government for this purpose.(section 4)
The law further provides that in case of the pregnant woman being a minor, pregnancy cannot be terminated without the consent of her guardian.
The purpose of this law is to prevent sex selective abortions but it has not proved successful in that case as a large number of illegal abortions are rampant. The law has not prevented female feticide but has rather brought hardship to people who genuinely want to end a pregnancy for reasons other than those expressly mentioned including any social or economic hardships that the pregnancy may result in.
Still, the law permits the abortions in cases of rape or abnormality in the fetus, so if the courts refuse to grant permission to abort where the rape survivor is a minor or where fetus carries genetic disorders, it goes against the letter and spirit of law.
The right to abort should be more pro choice as every person has different circumstances and may not be capable of bringing another life into this world or would have faced great hardships because of the child birth. Instead of banning abortions, government should lay greater emphasis on contraceptive means, lay stress on sex education in schools and promote a safer atmosphere for children.

The Copyright Law

The Indian Copyright Act, 1958, provides for the protection of the rights of the creator, who is described as an author of any literary or artistic work from unauthorized copying while giving him the right to register and copy or sell his creation.

Section 14 of the Act describes "copyright" as the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise to reproduce, issue copies, make recordings, sell or rent for commercial purpose, translate, or create an adaptation of the work.

Section 18 (1) provides that the owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof:

Provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence. Section 2 (d) describes author as-
(i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;
(ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer;
(iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
(iv) in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;
(v) in relation to a cinematograph or sound recording the producer; and

(vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created;

Section 22 provides that copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph) published within the lifetime of the author until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.

Section 37 provides that every broadcasting organisation shall have a special right to be known as "broadcast reproduction right" in respect of its broadcasts which shall subsist until twenty-five years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the broadcast is made.

Section 38 states that where any performer appears or engages in any performance, he shall have a special right to be known as the "performer's right" in relation to such performance which will subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the performance is made.

Section 39 provides that no broadcast reproduction right or performer's right shall be deemed to be infringed by making recording for private purpose or for bona fide research or teaching.

Section 51 describes the infringement of copyright in a work as follows:

(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act-

(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or

(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or

(b) when any person-

(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or

(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or

(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work

Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use of the importer.

Section 52 (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

(a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work not being a computer programme for the purposes of private use, research, criticism or review.

(aa) the making of copies or adaptation of a computer programme by the lawful possessor of a copy of such computer programme, from such copy- to utilize it for the purpose it was supplied for or make back up copies.

Section 55 (1) provides civil remedies for copyright infringement. Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right. Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable.

(2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name purporting to be that of the author or the publisher, as the case may be, appears on copies of the work as published, or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be.

(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the discretion of the court.

Section 63 provides that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work, or any other right conferred by this Act, except the right conferred by section 53A shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.

Section 63 A provides that whoever having already been convicted of an offence under section 63 is again convicted of any such offence shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year or a fine of less than one lakh rupees.

Freedom of press

In India, the freedom of press is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is rather derived from the freedom of speech and expression given under Article 19(1)(a). Being a part of the freedom of speech and expression, the press enjoys the same rights and is subject to same liabilities as any other citizen of India. However, in a democracy, the press plays an important role in highlighting the government actions and in criticizing its excesses. The freedom in a democracy can be said to be determined by the freedom its dissident press enjoys. The government that suppresses the freedom of its press cannot be truly called as a democratic government. The role of press is not just to show the good works of the ruling government but also to highlight all its misdeeds, all the actions where it has committed excesses and taken away the rights of the citizens. The press has a role to question various government actions which may not be in the interest of various sections of the society particularly the minorities and the weaker sections. In a democracy, it is not just the right but the duty to question various government policies and decisions. Questioning the ruling party does not mean that the sovereignty of a country is being questioned, it simply means that the various actions of the government may need justification. With power comes responsibility and the ruling party is always responsible to take the interests of all the sections of the society into consideration while making any policy decision. In such circumstances, speaking up is an act of patriotism while remaining silent and watching the government acting against the rule of law would not be an acceptable act specifically for the press. Accountability is an important factor in a democracy. A government can function smoothly only if required checks and balances are in place. Sometimes, the only check on the government actions is the press, in such circumstances, curtailing the freedom of press would be a harmful act for the country.

Secularism

Secularism loosely means the separation if state and church. Most modern democracies chose to be secular by not folliwing the church in the government processes. In India, secularism is guaranteed in the Constitution by providing the principles of equality. The chapter on fundamental rights begins by stating the equality clause followed by spelling out that there shall not be discrimination on the basis of religion. Further, the freedom of religion is provided and certain rights are given to the religious minorities. The term 'secular' was not used initially in the preamble as the franers of the Constitution felt that the Constitution is already secular in nature and there is no need to mention the term. Following the Babri masjid demoltion, the Supreme Court observed that secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution and thus its inalienable part. An attack on the secular nature of the Constitution would be an attack on the very principles that the countty is based on. Secularism means thar the State shall not promote one religion at the expense of another, it means that the religious practices of one religion shall not be forced upon in government offices. Though the Constitution gave certain rights to religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their institutions, it does not take away the secular structure of the Constitution, rather they are are a safeguard to protect different cultures from being lost in the tide of majority. Secularism is a concept that taljsbof protection of all and not promotion of the majority. It is the badic structure of the Constitution and it needs to be cherished.

Women parasites

Recently while dealing with a case related with increasing the maintenance of a divorced woman, the Delhi High Court advised the woman to get a job and stop being a paradite on her husband's earnings.  The court has used an unusual term 'parasite' to describe a woman who does not have a job. The question is whether a woman, who is a homemaker and does not have a professional career is a nobody? Are all her efforts at maintaining the house and taking care of the children and sometimes also her inlaws and extended family immaterial just because she does not gonout to earn? Many a times, a woman is forced to leave her job after marriage and after staying at home for ten or fifteen years is no longer wualified enough to enter the job market. If a woman has soent years of her life taking care of her husband and his house, doesnt she deserve to get maintenance if the martiage has had an unfortunate end. If a divorced woman is called a parasite, then even a widow can be called one anf then ultimately all homemakers will be declared parasites while their hours of unpaid labor will be ignored. In a society which still doesn't treat the women as equal to men, which still doesn't give equal pay for equal work, which still doesn't promote women, calling a woman a parasite is a slap on the face of all those who talk about gender justice.
While getting maintenance is not an absolute right of a wife and even husbands can get maintenance from their higher earning wives, it is required that the same provision is not misused and deserving women be forced on the street. When husbands are known to leave their jobs and declare bankruptcy in order to avoid giving maintenance to their estranged wives, te courts should be careful in awarding her what is due and courts should be extra careful in choosing the words they use.

Food and food habits part of right to life

The Allahabad High Court while hearing a petition against the beef ban and the closing down of illegal slaughterhouses ruled that food and food habits and the means of dispersing with them are part of rught to life and livelihood. The court ruled that putting a complete ban would interfere with an individual's private life if he desires to consume a particular food item. A complete ban impised by the state government amounts to the violation of Articles 19 and 21 and interfere with the rights of life and livelihood.
The court ordered the state government to formulate rules for regulating slaughterhouses and the inaction of previous governments is no excuse for putting a complete ban in place. The government is required to make rules for licensing the slaughterhouses and restaurants but it cannot completely ban the same. The court ruled that the food habits have evolved in the state based on its diversity and any order effecting themshould be in accordance with the secular structure of the constitution.
The government has no right to dictate what a person can or cannot eat. Food is a personal choice and interfering with it amounts to the violation of the right to privacy. Food is part of the right to life and selling it is part of right to livelihood. The state government cannot put a complete ban and infringe the two rights.

General principles of criminal liability

An act is not an offence unless it is committed with a guilty intention. "actus non facit reum, nisi mens it rea". Thus, for an act to be a crime, two essentials are required:
Actus reus- the wrongful act
Mens rea- guilty or wrongful intention
Intention is the most important factor in determining the extent of liability in case of am offence. Though the term 'intention' is not defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is implied by the terms dishonestly, fraudulently, voluntarily, 'criminal knowledge or intention'.
Section 24 provides that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Section 25 provides that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud not otherwise.
Section 39 provides that a person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it or by means which at the time of employing those means, he knew it had reasons to believe to be likely to cause it.
When mensrea is not necessary-
(1) where a statute imposes strict liability- eg FERA, NDPS
(2) when it is difficult to prove mensrea- offences punishable with petty fines
(3) in cases of public nuisance- in the interest of public safety
(4) criminal cases which are summary mode of enforcing civil rights
(5) in cases of mistake of law- ignorantia juris non excusat
Stages of crime
The various stages of crime causation are as follows:
(1) intention- this is the first stage when a person decides to commit an offence. It is not punishable.
(2) preparation- this is the second stage when in furtherance of the intention, the person starts preparing for the offence. It is not punishable generally except in the cases of sedition, preparing counterfeit coins, etc
(3) attempt- attempt is the third stage at which the person makes an overt act in furtherance of his intention. It is punishable.
(4) commission- this is the last stage when the offence contemplated is actually committed and results in the intended effect. It is punishable.

Discharge of contract

A contract may be discharged by (1) performance,(2) impossibility of performance,(3) agreement, or (4) breach.
(1) discharge by performance
Section 37 provides that the parties to a contract should perform their respective promises unless such a performance is excused under the provisions of any law. Further, unless otherwise stipulated, in case of death of death of the promisor before the performance of the promise, the liability to perform  will devolve on his successor. Section 40 states that the contract must be performed by the promisor himself if the terms if the contract so stipulate otherwise he or his representative can appoint a competent person to perform it.
In cases if joint liability, section 42 provides that unless a contrary stipulation, the contract must be performed jointly by all the persons in their lives or by the representatives with the survivors or representatives jointly. Section 43 states that the promisee can ask only one of the joint promisors to perform on behalf of all. In such cases each promisor  may compel contribution for performance from the others.
Time and place for performance
Section 46 provides that where no time is stipulated, the contract must be performed within reasonable time.
Section 49 provides that where no place is stipulated, the contract must be performed at a reasonable place. However, when the time or manner of performance of the contract is provided in the contract, section 50 states that the contract needs to be performed at the stipulated time or in the stipulated manner.
Reciprocal promises
Section 51 provides that in case of reciprocal promises, the promises are to be performed only when both parties are willing to perform. Section 52 provides that where the order of performance of reciprocal promises is stipulated, they should be performed in that order.
(2) discharge by impossibility of performance
Section 56 provides that an agreement to do an impossible act is void. If a contract is valid and the impossibility or illegality occurs subsequently, it becomes void from the time of such impossibility. When the performance of the contract becomes physically impossible due to the disappearance of the subject matter or the object the parties had in mind fails to materialize, the contract becomes void. This is known as the frustration of the contract. Section 65 provides that when an agreement becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under it is bound to restore it or to make compensation to the person from whom he received it.
(3) discharge by agreement
Section 62 provides that if the parties to the agreement agree to submit to a new contract for it or to alter or rescind it, the original contract need not be performed.
(4) discharge by breach
A breach of a contract occurs when a party renounces his liability to it or makes it impossible to perform it. An anticipatory breach occurs when prior to the promised date of performance, the promisor absolutely repudiates the contract.
Section 39 provides that when a party to the contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuation.
Section 73 provides that the party that suffers loss by breach of contract is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage so caused. The damages or compensation so awarded will only be for any general loss and not for any special damages. However, the courts may award damages for mental pain and suffering in special cases.
Section 74 provides that the penalty for breach of contract is stipulated for  in the terms of the agreement, the reasonable compensation shall not exceed the stipulated amount.

Quasi contracts

When a person gets some unjust enrichment or benefit, he is required by law to pay for it. Such a renedy is known as quasi-contract or relations resembling those created by contract. The Indian Contract Act,1872, recognizes five kinds of such relations.
(1) supply of necessaries
Section 68 provides that when a person supplies necessaries to another who is incompetent to contract or to someone he is legally bound to support, the supplier is entitled to recover the price from the property of the incompetent person.
A person supplying necessaries to a minor is covered under this head.
(2) payment by interested person
Section 69 provides that when a person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound to pay by law, and therefore pays it, he is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.
The person himself should not be bound to pay, he should only be interested in the payment in order to protect his own interests.
(3) non-gratuitous acts
Section 70 provides that when a person lawfully does something for someone or supplies something to him, not meaning it to be done gratuitously and the other enjoys the benefits from it, the latter is bound to pay for it or restore the thing done or delivered.
In this case, it is important to satisfy the conditions that the person should be  lawfully bound to do something, he should do it not intending it to be gratuitous and the other person should enjoy the benefits from such an act.
(4) finder if goods
Section 71 states that a person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.
(5) mistake or coercion
Section 72 states that a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
It is immaterial whether the mistake is of fact or of law.
In all these cases, obligations similar to contractual liabilities arise and the person enjoying the benefits of the act is bound to pay for them.

Basics of contract

A contract is defined as an agreement enforceable by law under section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act,1872. Section 2(e) defines an agreement as every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration for each other. Section 2(b) further explains that a proposal, when accepted becomes a contract.
Section 10 states that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Thus, for an agreement to become a contract, it is required that there is some consideration for it, the parties are competent to contract, the consent is free and the object is lawful.
The essentials of a valid contract are thus:
(1) proposal and acceptance
Section 2(a) defines proposal as, when one person signifies to another his willingness to do ir to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of the other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
The general rule defined under Weeks v Tybald is that offer must be made to a definitive person. An exception us general offers. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, it was observed that an offer can be made to the world at large but the contract is made only with the person who comes forwards and performs the conditions of the offer.
Section 2(b) defines acceptance as, when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.
Section 7 provides that acceptance must be absolute and unqualified and expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted.
(2) consideration
Section 2(d) states that when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing or promises to do or to abstain from doung, something, such act or abstinence or promuse is called a consideration for the promise.
Section 25 provides that an agreement with consideration is void.
(3) capacity
Section 11 states that every person is competent to contact who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subjwct, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
(A) minor- a minor's agreement is void. There is no estoppel against him or liabity for any breach or tort arisung out if the contract against him. He cannot ratify an agreement upon reaching age if majority. However, his estate shall be liable for the supply of necessities to him (section 68)
(B) lunatic- section 12 defines that a person is said to be sound mind if at the time of making an agreement, he is capable of understanding it and making a rational decision and provides that a person who is normally of unsound mind can make a contract when he is of sound mind and one who is normally of sound mind may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind.
(4) free consent
Section 14 provides that consent is said to be free if it is not caused by coercion (section 15), undue influence (section 16), fraud (section 17), misrepresentation (section 18), or mistake (sections 20,21,22).
An agreement where the consent is not free is voidable at the option if the party whose consent was so obtained.
(5) legality of object
Section 23 provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that if permitted would defeat the purpose of law, is fraudulent, or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the court regards it to be immoral or opposed to public policy.
Void agreements
Agreements expressly declared to be void are:
(1) those which are unlawful in part (section 24)
(2) those without consideration (section 25)
(3) those in restraint of marriage (section 26)
(4) those in restraint if trade (section 27)
(5) those in restraint of legal proceedings (section 28)
(6) those whose meaning is uncertain (section 29)
(7) wagering agreements (section 30)
An illegal agreement is also void but a void agreement may not be illegal.

Appeal on the ground of religion, caste or language in elections

The Supreme Court has recently decided by a majority of 4-3 that the election of any candidate shall be declared void if he or his election agent appeals on the ground of religion, caste or language. The Supreme Court ruled taking into consideration the fact that various political parties and candidates use language or religion as a ground for appealing to vote or refraining to vote for any candidate in the elections.
Section 123 subsection 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, provides that appealing on the ground of religion, caste or language to vote or refrain from  voting for a candidate amounts to electoral offence. The subsection further prohibits the use of any religious or national symbols by the candidates or their agents. However, any symbol allotted by the election commission shall not be deemed to be a religious or national symbol. In the case of Indira Gandhi, the court held that the party symbol showing a cow and calf is not a religious symbol.
Section 123 subsection 3A of the Representation of the Peoples Act,1951, states that promoting enmity on the ground of religion, caste or language to appeal for voting or refraining from voting for a particular candidate by any candidate or his agent shall amount to electoral offence. Spreading or promoting enmity between communities on the grounds of religion, caste or language or giving hate speeches to influence voteers to vote for or refrain from voting for any candidate amounts to electoral offence.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court shall set aside and declare null and void the election of any candidate who uses religion, caste or language as a ground for appealing to bote in the election.