When a person enters into an agreement that requires him to do something that goes against his or her public duty, the agreement is not enforced because of public order. Because z.B is an agent`s agreement to obtain secret profits, because it is contrary to public order. Similarly, an agreement by a government official to acquire land in his circle is illegal, contrary to public policy. Example: a paid B, a civil servant a certain amount of money that encourages him to withdraw from the service, thus paving the way for the appointment of A in his place. The agreement was rescinded. By law, any agreement by which a person is deterred from practising a legal profession, commercial or commercial activity is null and void in this regard. For example, a loan from B, a lender, obtained and agreed with B that without B`s written agreement, he would not quit his job, borrow money, cede his property or change residence. It was found that the agreement was inconclusive. An agreement is not considered legal if it is contrary to public policy. The doctrine of public order is based on the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio,” meaning that an agreement against public order would have no effect. The term “public policy” does not have a comprehensive definition of its fluctuating nature and is highly uncertain. The interpretation of public order is left to the discretion of the Tribunal.
Contractual terms cannot be enforced even if they have been agreed by both parties, if they are contrary to public policy. Figure 2: A person `A` is convicted of murder and `B` is the witness. If an agreement is reached with “B” to change his testimony / not appear in court, it is illegal and not aeig. It is an agreement in which one or the other party or a third party receives a certain amount of money in return for the marriage. Such agreements, which oppose public order, have no effect. An agreement with the intention of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable, as it is contrary to public policy. Example: A, a purohit was promised to Rs.50 considering getting a second woman for B. Subsequently, A brought an action against B in order to recover the aforementioned amount. It was found that such a promise would amount to an illegal conjugal mediation contract and that the agreement was not applicable.