The article examined various principles set out in the provision, in conjunction with the case law, to determine the judicial status on illegal contracts. In addition, these provisions have been analyzed to determine their significance and application based on the situations and circumstances in which they are used. The three main principles that are illustrated in this article are essentially the guiding principles and determinants of illegal contracts and agreements in the Indian judicial system. In this case, the specific provision of the Indian Contracts Act in question sets out in detail the objectives that could be achieved under the conclusion of a contract. These provisions are clear and detailed and have been commented on over the years by forensic experts in several precedents. However, the “Against Public Order” segment continues to create a blurring area in determining whether or not a contract is illegal. As mentioned in some cases, public order is generally interpreted as something for the common good; However, its definition changes with the circumstances. Therefore, the interpretation of this provision is not uniform and concrete. It must be based on the situation, which is sometimes largely based on opinions. Such opinions are subjective and depend on how a particular person analyzes a particular situation. This creates an ambiguous and worrying situation for policy makers. This is not of the same importance as reflection and is not used in the same way.

According to this connotation, if a contract has a legal and effective consideration, it will not prevent the contract of the object disputed, that is, the object of the contract is illegal and contrary to public order. To establish the illegality of a treaty, the commonly followed basic rule is: “Do the parties oppose the law by getting involved in the treaty?” If this question provides a positive answer, the treaty is illegal and unenforceable. Section 23 of the Indian Treaty has various parties to it that determine the illegality of a contract. Has entered into a contract with his friend B. One of the terms of the contract stipulates that B pays a sum of 10,000 rupees/- per A provided B commits the theft of a valuable artifact from the home of a third party, C. An illegal agreement under the common law of the treaty, is an agreement that the court will not enforce, because the purpose of the agreement is to obtain an illegal purpose. The illegal purpose must result from the performance of the contract. The classic example of such an agreement is a murder contract. When a party enters into a contract under duress (usually under threat of damage or retaliation), that contract may be considered illegal and therefore unenforceable. Even in cases where most of the contract is effectively legal, the entire contract may be revoked (i.e.

terminated) if it can be proven that only one term has been concluded under duress. A possible defence for coercive charges is where the other party has also been involved in coercive activities called “unclean hands”. This particular provision of the Indian Contracts Act deals with the intent of the parties.