As a general rule, contracts that violate public policy are non-binding and unenforceable. Therefore, a court would dismiss an action to enforce a contract of servitude. Other cases are less obvious. For example, if two parties decide to settle their dispute in a written agreement, a provision according to which one party does not notify the offences committed by the other party to law enforcement authorities is contrary to public policy and is not applicable. While it`s not illegal to keep someone else`s crime to yourself and not report it, a promise not to do so goes against Arizona`s public order, which encourages citizens to report crimes and do so. Agreements that restrict the personal freedom of the parties are non-binding, as they are in accordance with public order. It is clear that the scope and interpretation of public policy are broad and that applicability is left to the discretion of the General Court itself on the basis of the agreement and subject-matter. If an agreement is found to be contrary to public policy, it will be cancelled in accordance with section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872. If, contrary to public policy, an agreement is invalidated, it cannot challenge the injunction because of the citizen`s freedom of contract. All agreements that relate to or interfere with the administration of justice are deemed invalid in accordance with section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The courts must carefully consider the matter before applying the doctrine of public order for reasons of development of public opinion and morality.
Another example of an agreement contrary to public order would be an agreement to obtain a government job or a government name through corrupt means. Such a treaty would not be applicable. Such a contract is considered to be contrary to public policy, because if this practice were allowed, it would increase corruption and result in public services being inefficient and unreliable. Normally, the role of the Court of First Instance is to enforce contracts, so the regulation of contracts based on public policy is an exception to their traditional function. Only the courts are competent to interpret public order. Figure 1: Person “A” is convicted of murder. His friend “P” goes to the judge to make an agreement to put “A” in order. The same agreement is not concluded.
Example: a paid B, a civil servant, a certain amount of money that leads him to leave office, thus paving the way for A to be appointed in his place. The agreement was cancelled. Courts should be very careful when ruling on a matter of public policy. Teaching must be applied with the necessary variation. Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts. Some of the agreements contrary to public policy are briefly explained below with the help of examples. However, some general agreements could be considered against public order, such as: Privy Council in the case of Raja Venkata Subhadrayamma Guru v. Sree Pusapathi Venkapathi Raju[vi] held that the court could refuse the application of such agreements only if the court considers that it is not done with an object of good faith or a reward that appears to be blackmailed and that Champerty and alimony in India are not illegal.
(b) agreements that relate to or combat corruption of individuals in matters of public affairs. `public policy` means a vague and unsatisfactory concept intended to create uncertainties and errors when applying to the decision on legal rights; it is capable of being understood in different directions; it can and will mean, in its ordinary sense, `political expediency` or what is best for the common good of the Community; And in this sense, there can be any type of opinion, depending on the education, habits, talents and dispositions of any person who must decide whether or not an act is contrary to public order. . . .