Minors Can’t Be Bound by Contract is a foundational principle in Indian contract law that protects young individuals from legal obligations.

Introduction

“Agreements”—something that we come across regularly knowingly or unknowingly, whether you are a student of law, science, medicine, or a person working in an IT department.

Now, you may ask, how is this useful to the common man? The answer is simple—the use of agreements in our day-to-day lives is quite common, even if we are unaware of it. Booking a cab from an application, with the driver accepting the offer and thus you paying for the service, is all a contract. In this process, there are several agreements, such as you agreeing to the terms and conditions of the application, you as a customer giving the offer, the driver accepting the offer and charging a fee on behalf of the platform (which is a consideration—a legal term made simple). For this blog, we will consider the situation where a minor books a cab and use a landmark case to help explain this concept further. This blog simplifies the idea of a minor entering a contract, the void nature of such a contract, the inapplicability of the law of Estoppel (in such cases), and what happens to such contracts practically, or how they are perceived in the eyes of law.

Who is a Minor in Law?

The answer to this is simple—someone who can understand the consequences of their decisions, someone who is of a rational mind, and someone who can differentiate between right and wrong. This is what, as common people, we perceive.

Now, what the law does differently is to set up a reference point to clarify this general understanding.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act:
“A person is considered a minor if they have not attained the age of 18 years, unless a specific law or court-appointed guardian states otherwise—in which case, the age of majority is 21.”

Key Takeaways:

1. Everyone below 18 in India is a minor in the eyes of the law.
2. In particular cases, where there is a state-appointed guardian assigned, a person below the age of 21 is still considered a minor.

A Contract Entered by a Minor and Its Void Nature

A contract where a minor is a party—whether as the offeror or the offeree—is considered void ab initio, meaning void from the very beginning. In simple terms, such a contract holds no legal value in the eyes of the law. It is treated as if the contract never existed at all.

The legal basis for this principle is found in Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states:
“Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which they are subject, who is of sound mind, and who is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject.”

This provision clearly excludes minors from the category of persons competent to contract, affirming that they cannot legally enter into binding agreements.

To understand this better, we will now look at a landmark case: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), which laid down the foundation for this rule in Indian contract law.

Case Summary: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

Facts (Simplified):
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property to a moneylender named Bramo Dutt, represented by Mohori Bibee, to secure a loan. At the time of the agreement, the lender’s agent knew that Ghose was a minor. Later, when the lender tried to enforce the mortgage and recover the money, Ghose refused, stating he was a minor when the contract was made.

Legal Principle:
The Privy Council held that:

1. A contract made by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning).
2. Minors cannot be forced to return the money or benefit received under such a contract because the contract itself never legally existed.
3. The law aims to protect minors, not punish them for lacking maturity.

This principle laid down the foundation of Section 183 of the Indian Contract Act, which states:
“A minor’s agreement being void ab initio, neither can they enter into a contract nor authorize an agent to do so on their behalf.”

Takeaway for the Common Man

If a person is under 18, any agreement they enter into—no matter how fair or well-drafted—is not legally valid. You cannot sue them to enforce such an agreement, and they cannot be held liable even if they received money or goods. The law sees them as not mature enough to be bound by legal obligations.

The Law of Estoppel: Its Simple Meaning and Relation to Our Case

The principle of Estoppel is governed by Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads:

“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 representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

Put simply, this means that if someone makes a statement or behaves in a way that leads another person to believe something and act upon that belief, they cannot later deny what they earlier led the other person to believe—especially when questions of responsibility arise. It’s a legal way of saying, “You can’t lie and then walk away when it matters.”

However, here’s the key point: the law does not impose contractual liability on minors. That means, even if a minor falsely presents themselves as an adult and induces someone into a contract, they are not legally bound. As a result, the law of Estoppel does not apply to minors. The legal system chooses to prioritize the protection of minors over punishing deceit in such situations.

Conclusion: Tying It All Back to the Cab Booking Example

Now that we’ve broken down the legal principles in simple, everyday language, let’s bring everything full circle using our cab booking scenario.

Suppose a minor books a cab and falsely claims to be an adult. The cab driver, believing this, proceeds with the ride assuming the person is legally capable of paying. Later, when it comes time to pay or resolve a legal issue, the minor reveals their true age. At first glance, this feels like a clear case of dishonesty. Under the law of Estoppel, the minor should not be allowed to deny what they earlier claimed, especially after the cab driver acted on that belief.

But here’s the legal twist: because the person is a minor, the law steps in to protect them. Even though there was misrepresentation, the law does not allow a contract with a minor to be enforced. Nor does it apply Estoppel to hold them accountable. This is because the law prioritizes protecting a minor rather than punishing misrepresentation in such situations.

This conclusion ties directly to what we learned from the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903). That case firmly established that a minor’s agreement is void from the beginning, and they cannot be bound, even if they misrepresented their age.

Now, under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, if someone enjoys the benefit of a contract and that contract is later cancelled, they are typically required to restore the benefit or compensate the other party. But again—this only applies to valid contracts. Since a minor’s contract is void from the beginning, Section 64 does not apply.

But here’s the real-life twist:
The app was logged in through an adult’s account—say, a parent or elder sibling. In such cases, it’s that adult who will ultimately be held liable, and they may have to compensate the driver. So, while the law protects minors, it doesn’t always protect the adults behind them.

Takeaway for parents (pun intended): Maybe it’s time to lock the cab apps—literally. Use app locks or parental controls to make sure you don’t end up footing the bill for a ride you didn’t take.

Moral of the story: The law may protect the minor—but it sends the bill to the grown-up who left the app unlocked.

---

Kaustav Chakraborty ( South Calcutta Law College – 2nd year )