The number of people who take their own lives has been gradually climbing over the past several years. Additionally, the number of people who die by suicide each year is 25 times larger than those who die by suicide attempts each year. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA), 2017, was passed into law by the Indian government around the end of the year 2018, possibly as an attempt to help the situation surrounding mental health. The Act, notablySection 115 of the act, removed the stigma associated with suicidal ideation and attempts, which reduced the stigma and the extended mental anguish experienced by a patient who survives a suicide attempt.


There were potential legal repercussions due to this Act given that it contradicts Sections 109, 116, 306, and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Those individuals who have attempted suicide would have become eligible to receive free mental healthcare, treatment, and rehabilitation due to this piece of legislation.


Therefore, the end outcome places a significant financial strain on the government. Refreshing one's knowledge of mental illness and related skills is required for medical professionals, mental health professionals, and general and mental health institutions engaged in the treatment of persons who have attempted suicide to comply with the conditions of the act. In compliance with the criteria of the Mental Health Care Act of 2017, massive public education campaigns were also required to make treatment for mental health issues available to persons who have attempted suicide.


The structure of this study includes an analysis, from a comparative point of view, of the legal frameworks that exist in various countries on the right to commit suicide. After reviewing the available evidence, the author of this paper reviews the domestic state of affairs taking into account that the right to life includes the right to a good death. The final part of the paper includes a discussion of many different recommendations for future policy.



Indian Scenario:

The Indian legislature has enacted a significant number of legislations over the years. As a consequence of this, it should not come as a surprise that different regulations addressing the same subject may have contradictory interpretations. Resultantly, the Court is usually considered responsible for reviewing existing laws and providing a clear interpretation of them where there is ambiguity. This is done so that the Parliament may later settle any conflicts that exist between different pieces of legislation by setting it into law.


It seems like that is what happened when the Supreme Court raised attention to one of these irregularities, which is an issue that has not had a visible conciliation. By reading down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 effectively decriminalized suicide. As a result, the Supreme Court ordered an explanation from the Union government about this apparent contradiction in the law, and required the then Attorney General, KK Venugopal to oversee this inquiry.


There are a few facets to this comment that demand special study, not the least of which is the urgent need to weed out policies that are no longer relevant in today's world. IPC Section 309 is a provision that dates back to the colonial era, and it goes against the growing understanding that mental illness is a problem that has to be treated rather than discriminated against. For instance, mental illness frequently results in suicide, which is often considered a choice rather than a result of a health condition. On the other hand, the Mental Healthcare Act is a forward-thinking piece of legislation that promotes an ideation of suicide that is in keeping with the most recent scientific findings.


For example, Section 115 of the Act acknowledges the significant role that mental illness plays in people's decisions to end their lives by putting an end to their own life. This argument is of crucial value to the families of those who have committed suicide because of the stigma that is connected to mental illness.


People who are in need of treatment must have access to medical facilities, but it is also vitally necessary to challenge the deeply ingrained biases that taint public discourse on suicide and contribute to the taboo around suicide as well as the silence surrounding it. There is opportunity for legal change considering the direction that international law is moving in this day and age. Both Canada and Ireland removed the criminal penalties for suicide in 1972. The legal and public debate must take into account the fact that decriminalizing suicide might be an important first step in order to start a meaningful dialogue about preventing suicide. This is necessary in order to get the conversation started.



Study on Criminalization:

The International Suicide Prevention Association (IASP) policy released in May 2020 recommended that suicide attempts be decriminalized. Reducing societal stigma, increasing access to mental health treatment, and fostering suicide prevention activities can all be achieved by decriminalizing attempted suicide. Anti-suicide laws have subsequently eroded, especially in more secular regions of the world that allow for a wide range of non-religious and moral interpretations of suicide. In spite of numerous requests for the decriminalization of suicide, no comprehensive study or empirical evaluations have been conducted on the deterrent effect of anti-suicide legislation worldwide.


If the act of taking one's own life is legally stigmatized, those who have attempted suicide and those who have survived a suicide attempt may feel humiliated and enraged. It logically follows that repealing any such legislation will have good long-term effects, including lowering the social stigma associated with suicide, increasing the number of individuals who seek professional care, and removing the burden of potential criminal prosecution from those who attempt suicide.




Global Review:

There are a number of countries in Africa that have legalized the act of suicide, while the vast majority of Asian nations, with a few notable exceptions like India, have decriminalized the act of attempting suicide. Even in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, scenarios are shifting lately.



In almost every state in the United States, both committing suicide and attempting suicide is allowed. Each year, there are over 40,000 people who take their own lives in the United States, which places suicide as the tenth leading cause of death in the country regardless of the method of death. On the other hand, the attempt to commit suicide was previously considered a criminal offence in several countries.


Today, it is quite unusual for charges to be brought against a criminal who is in the process of dying. In the case of Wackwitz v. Roy (1992), in which the question of whether or not suicide is legal, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated that it is conscious that it is legislative sanctioning that treats suicide as a crime. This statement was made during the course of the discussion regarding the legality of suicide. "No suicide should work a debasement of blood or forfeiture of an inheritance," as the law states in Section 55–4 of the US Civil Code. Yet, this does not mean that the crime itself has been eliminated. This is due to the fact that committing suicide is considered a crime in a number of common-law jurisdictions, including Virginia.


Policy Design:

The right to one's own life is one of the most fundamental rights, since it ensures that everyone may lead a respectable life. This right is more than just a requirement for the state not to interfere with the life or body components of an individual; rather, it is a fundamental right. The State was also given the responsibility of upholding the sanctity and dignity of human life, which constituted a positive obligation. As civilized jurisprudence changes its focus to the potential of State legislators decriminalizing suicide or attempts at suicide, the time has come to develop unambiguous legal norms on both the national and international levels. Regulation of physician-assisted euthanasia is necessary, at the very least in the United States, and the establishment of similar laws in other countries is just a matter of time. In the process of formulating policy, defining crucial terms related to mental illness and giving them an unmistakable meaning devoid of any room for interpretation ought to be given the highest priority.



Repercussions in India:

Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 309 makes it clear that attempted suicide is still considered a criminal act. Those who are accused of the alleged offense have the choice between being released on bail, not having their cases compounded, or having their cases heard by a magistrate. People who participate in illegal or risky behaviors that cause harm to society or another human being are frequently considered to be criminally liable, as this is one of the primary reasons why they are held accountable for their actions.


One of the reasons to press criminal charges against an individual is to serve as a deterrent for those who might be tempted to engage in behavior that is unethical or detrimental to society. Even though it is illegal to attempt suicide, that does not prevent people from going through with it and killing themselves in the end. Because of their mental state, those who are suicidal will not ask about the consequences of their actions or whether or not they will be punished for what they have done. The use of jails and other types of punishment does not seem to have the effect of discouraging suicidal behavior. On the other side, punishment will not assist a person who is suicidal since it may aggravate their situation without rehabilitating them, which in turn may drive them to take their life. There are a still a few countries in Africa, like Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, that have made it illegal to commit suicide. It is for us to see whether India is a country that wants to be grouped with the aforementioned countries in terms of treatment of mental illness.


A few other Asian countries, including Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, continue to criminalize attempt to suicide. On the other hand, physician-assisted euthanasia is only legal in China, hence the practice is illegal everywhere else. In the United States, only Guyana and the Bahamas have legislation that makes it illegal to attempt to take one's own life. On the other hand, euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States, with the exception of a few states. Although some countries prohibit physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Suicide Act in the United Kingdom makes it such that attempted suicide is not a crime.

People who try to end their own life should not be subject to legal consequences of incarceration by the State since they are not causing any harm to anybody else or to society as a whole when they do this. John Locke believed that the state should not interfere with an individual's liberty provided that person's actions did not negatively impact the rights of another person.


The majority of countries, including those that have decriminalized attempts at suicide, have laws that make it illegal to abet, aid, or encourage someone else to commit suicide. However, the nature of the actions that are considered illegal and the nature of the punishments vary greatly from country to country. There are 192 countries in the world, and 142 of them have laws that make it illegal to aid or encourage someone else to commit suicide. These prohibitions can include jail sentences. There is a lot of variety in the language of what is included in these Statutes, and once again, the level of enforcement varies widely from place to place. A sampling of the specific wording of what is deemed to be illegal in the laws provides some examples of the variety of descriptions of what is prohibited. For instance, "complicity in suicide" is prohibited in Bhutan and several other countries; "suicide pacts" are prohibited in Kenya; "direct provoking of a minor to suicide" is prohibited in Djibouti; "driving someone to suicide" or making a suicide attempt by way of threatening, cruel treatment, or systematic humiliation of human dignity.


Sociological implications:

Some people believe that the point of punishment is to teach people not to engage in illegal behavior in the future or contradict behaviors that have become normalized in society. It has not been demonstrated that threatening someone with jail time has a preventative effect on those who want to attempt suicide. In spite of the fact that one may anticipate that the number of suicide fatalities that are documented would be lower in nations where suicide is regarded as a taboo and criminal, the suicide rate is in fact, not lower in nations that have laws that penalize those who attempt suicide.


As a consequence of retribution theory, it is commonly believed that the criminal committed a purposeful act of will in order to warrant the application of punishment. According to Mishara and Tousignant (2004) and the World Health Organization (2014), it is generally accepted that individuals who attempt suicide have a mental disorder that makes it difficult for them to make decisions that are reasonable or "right." This is a theory that has gained widespread acceptance in recent years. Liberals, as a general rule, are of the opinion that penalizing people who attempt suicide is a reflection of society's animosity against individuals who go against predetermined social standards and/or religion.


A criminal may also be made to suffer public humiliation as part of their sentence in order to illustrate the level of disapproval felt by the general population. During the 18th century, the body of an inhabitant of Quebec, Canada who had committed suicide was paraded through the streets and hung in public. As a consequence of this, the bodies of suicide victims are frequently dishonored and buried in locations that are not within cemeteries in many civilizations in the modern world. Putting someone behind bars for having attempted suicide is a frequent tactic to humiliate and degrade both the person and their family in the eyes of other people, as long as they are living.



It is necessary to push for the decriminalization of suicide in countries where it is considered as a crime rather than as a problem related to mental health. These countries include the United States and Canada. In addition, it would be useful to urge the formation of an international standard definition of "aiding, abetting, and assisting in suicide," which encompasses all of these activities. In some countries, it is only criminal to make plans to end one's own life, while in others, the concept of what constitutes illegal behavior is so broadly interpreted that even a passing remark to someone who is having suicidal thoughts might be construed as encouraging them to go through with it. Legislation and International law need to address the issue of aiding and abetting suicide in the cyberspace, as the internet is rapidly being used to encourage suicide and supply knowledge on different methods of committing suicide.


In countries where decriminalization of suicide has not taken place and is not going to take place, it is nevertheless vital to establish ways for giving mental health treatment to people who have attempted suicide. In the past, countries with liberal beliefs have been the ones to decriminalizesuicide by spreading the view that people who attempt suicide are not knowingly going against prevalent religious and cultural norms. This is done despite the fact that it is necessary to respect religious and cultural values.


The availability of empirical evidence demonstrates a common inability to make an informed and competent decision as a result of a mental illness, the use of substances, or being in a state of crisis. In addition, a person often makes an attempt at suicide when they are experiencing an intense amount of psychological suffering, and those who attempt suicide are more likely to have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their attempt. The overwhelming majority of people who attempt suicide have a requirement for mental health treatment and support services (WHO, 2014). We have reached the conclusion that the course of action that is likely to be the most successful in the great majority of circumstances is to approach the problem of suicidal behavior as a psychological and mental health issue.


Since the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 has been passed into law, there have been debates and discussions on the fact that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which was passed in 1860, may resultantly be repealed. Many people now believe that Section 309 is no longer in effect as a consequence of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017, which was passed in 2017. However, this new law did not result in the repeal of the aforementioned Section 309; rather, it restricted the applicability of that section. According to Section 115 of the Act, a person is deemed to be suffering from excessive stress when they attempt suicide; as a result, they are not liable to prosecution or punishment in accordance with Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


It is crucial to notice that the Act does not explicitly repeal Clause 309 or make it applicable to all attempts at suicide. The only exception to this is the portion that presumes the individual who attempted suicide was under "severe stress."



In spite of the fact that suicide is now legal, we continue to make a distinction between the act of attempting suicide by oneself and the act of having another person assist, provoke, or encourage suicidalbehaviour. Even in jurisdictions that make euthanasia and assisted suicide legal for persons who are suffering from a terminal illness or a condition that has no end in sight, the act of assisting another person in taking their own life is controversial. When dealing with this reality, it is crucial to be able to differentiate between a person's psychological or emotional anguish and a medical condition that is becoming worse or has been going on for a long time.


Regardless of one's religious or utilitarian allegiances or one's Western liberal orientation, there is general consensus that supporting and aiding a suicide is morally wrong and ought to be punished. This is the case even if one is a Western liberal. However, there is no consensus that the person who is being assisted has a wounded conscious will. Cooley (2007) found that only a small number of rational suicides were respected. Hence, there is much ambiguity on which philosophy of punishment is more enlightened when considering our strong desire to punish those who help and abet those who commit crimes. It does not matter how we look at it; whether it is an act of retribution or an attempt to control the free and logical decision-making capacity of another individual, is a hard problem.

This Blog is Authored by Shruti Avinash, a third year student of the NALSAR University of Law.

Image Source

There is barely any community on the planet that does not struggle with the issue of criminality. For a long time, people have accepted criminal behavior as a natural occurrence. Even if all of the members of a community possessed ideal characteristics, there would still be instances of people breaking the rules that govern that society. In terms of facts, criminal activity is a persistent phenomena that adapts to the shifting social landscape. Conflicts, which finally lead to the occurrence of criminal activity, are stoked by the fact that various social groupings in a society have disparate interests, which are frequently incompatible with one another. The purpose of the system of criminal justice is to safeguard society from criminals by enforcing the penal laws that are currently in place against those who commit crimes.


Therefore, punishment has been considered a method for reducing the incidence of criminal behaviour, either by discouraging the potential offenders, by incapacitating the offenders and preventing them from repeating the offence, or by rehabilitating the offenders into law-abiding citizens. All of these are possible outcomes of the application of punishment. Criminalization refers to the practice of applying punishment strategies to actions that are considered anti-social. The issue of overcriminalization is currently one of the most significant difficulties that are faced by the criminal justice systems across the world.





Decriminalization is the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations (usually possession for personal use). There has not been a discernible rise in the amount of drug usage, drug-related damage, or drug-related crime among nations that have implemented less harsh policies against drug possession in comparison to those that have adopted more punishing policies. For instance, a study conducted by the World Health Organization discovered that the United States had the highest lifetime drug usage rates by a significant margin, despite its severe policies. The researchers came to the conclusion that decriminalization has little or no influence on the rates of use.


According to the findings of several studies in the USA, those who are given harsher punishments are more likely to commit other crimes in the future. As per a review of over fifty studies that began in 1958, the rate of recidivism was higher for criminals who were sentenced to terms of more than 30 months on average than it was for convicts who got terms of less than 12.9 months. In contrast to sentences that are shorter, those that are longer don't seem to have much of a special deterrence to them. According to the findings of the research, repeat offenders are more likely to receive shorter sentences, but they do not become less likely over longer sentences.


Only when criminals are aware that they will be caught and punished for breaching the law are they likely to refrain from committing such offences. To put it another way, there is no connection between lower crime rates and the severity of punishment, regardless of how definite it is that the offender will receive that level of punishment. If a criminal does not anticipate being apprehended, then the severity of the punishment has no influence on whether or not they will be found guilty of their crime.


The reality of drug use in the jurisdiction in which the decriminalization of drug possession using maximum-quantity thresholds is being implemented should coincide with these thresholds. For instance, if the threshold limit is set too low, the policy may not have any effect at all; alternatively, it may result in an increase in the number of incarcerations or the amount of time spent behind bars. The expansion of harm reduction and treatment activities, including as medication-assisted therapy, should be accompanied by decriminalization efforts to ensure the most positive outcomes.


NDPS and Criminalization


The Indian government initially passed the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) in 1985. Since then, the law has been amended three times: in 1989, 2001, and most recently (2014). In India, people who trade narcotics will be subject to severe punishments, while drug users will be offered rehabilitation services. It is prohibited to produce, cultivate, sell, purchase, import, export, and consume narcotics, psychotropic substances, and any derivatives of those substances. This is done as part of an attempt to combat the international trafficking of drugs and the abuse of drugs.


The NDPS Act, once it became public knowledge, advocated heavy punishments for the trafficking of drugs while also expanding its ability to enforce international treaties to which India is a signatory and to direct psychoactive substances. The NDPS is mostly corrective in nature, serving to control the pharmaceutical industry. Initially, the Act did not prohibit the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. As a result of staunch activism, the death penalty was replaced in the amendment that was passed in 2014 with a punishment of jail for a period of thirty years.


In order to improve upon the NDPS Act, which had been in effect since 1977, the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was passed into law in 1988. A significant component of the legislation mandates the indefinite incarceration of those who are thought to be involved in or suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking.


On one hand, those who advocate for Human Rights contend that the use of the death penalty is never acceptable, not even in the most exceptional of situations. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, requested in 1997 that India restrict the use of the death penalty to just the gravest of offences, with the ultimate objective of doing away with the practise altogether.


As a means to reduce illegal drug sales, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) employs a variety of medical controls, all of which have been criticized by the UNODC. Theft of opium by an authorized grower, unapproved trade in opiates and neuropsychiatric substances, outside management of opiates and psychotropic substances, funding of unlawful dealing, and detention of responsible parties are all violations stated in Section 31-A of the Act.


As a direct consequence of this, a person in a position of authority is required to effect behavioral adjustments in the offender. When generally determining the appropriate punishment, it is customarily necessary to take into account all of the relevant information, including how the general public feels about the predicament.


Because the minimum mandatory punishment is ten years in prison, and because courts have been able to secure a large number of drug sellers on specialized grounds, there has been a practical reluctance to enforce such harsh regulations. This is due to the fact that the minimum mandatory punishment is ten years in prison. Despite the lesser degree of discipline, it was not difficult to get convictions under the Opium Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act in the end. These laws deal with illegal drugs.


Cannabis and opium have been used for a very long time, despite the fact that there are conservative and social segments of the population in this country who are of the opinion that these narcotics should not be regarded in the same manner as heroin and cocaine.


When law enforcement organizations operate at lower levels, it might be challenging for them to accept the precise procedural provisions of the NDPS Act because they do not comprehend them. Due to that, a significant number of drug offenders are given the opportunity to go free due to procedural errors.



It is also required to do a reexamination of the legal framework that applies to those who use drugs. In all honesty, this Act does not differentiate between a user and a dealer in any way. "Controlled Delivery" is a tactic that has shown to be particularly effective in the fight against illegal drug use. The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 does not contain any particular provision with regard to this matter, despite the fact that the NDPS Act mandates the utilization of a controlled mode of transportation.


NDPS offenses, along with other financial offenses, should be reviewed in accordance with international standards. This will ensure that legal executives are prepared to bring misbehavior even in frivolous financial offenses, to the scaffold, and will increase the likelihood that this issue of drug dependency in Indian society will be discovered and rightly treated.



As a result of the stringent limitations imposed by the NDPS Act, opiate drugs such as opium, heroin, and hashish are extremely difficult to acquire. People who use drugs are looking for new places to go in order to get their intoxication, while at the same time attempting to escape authorities.


In conclusion, the nature of criminalization is such that it warrants a much more nuanced understanding of its effects on the usage of drugs or even just the possession of drugs. Here, the approach taken by the NDPS act is far from ideal and needs a review in light of studies on misguided criminalization as well as recommendations in alignment with Human Rights jurisprudence. 

This Blog is Authored by Shruti Avinash, a third year student of the NALSAR University of Law.

Image Source


A retroactive agreement between two parties who have no prior responsibilities to each other is known as a quasi-contract. It is made by the judge to fix a situation in which one party benefits at the expense of the other. This agreement is meant to keep one party from taking advantage of the situation at the expense of the other. If the goods or services are accepted but not sought by either party, these contracts can be imposed. Acceptance justifies the payment expectation. A quasi-contract outlines a party's responsibility to another if the latter owns the original party's property. These parties are not required to have previously agreed-upon terms. If Person ‘A’ owes something to Person ‘B’ because Person A indirectly or accidentally owes Person ‘B’, the agreement is imposed by law by the judge as a remedy. The contract becomes enforceable if Person ‘A’ decides to keep the thing in question without paying. The contract is legally enforceable because it was reached in court, and neither party needs to consent to it. The goal of quasi-contracts is to produce equitable outcomes in instances when one party has an advantage over the other. The defendant (the party that acquired the property) is obligated to pay the plaintiff, the aggrieved party, a return for the value of the items.[i]



The origins of quasi-contracts can be traced back to the Middle Ages when they were referred to as debt assumptions. During this time, the law compelled the plaintiff to get the amount determined by the court from the defendant, as if the defendant had always agreed to pay the plaintiff for the goods or services.


Courts utilized the Indebitatus assumpsit procedure to order one party to pay the other as though the two parties had signed a contract. The law inferred the defendant's willingness to be bound by a contract requiring compensation. Such contracts were utilized to enforce reimbursement obligations in the early days of quasi-contracts.[ii]



1.     It's usually the right to geta remedy, and it's usually (but not always) a monetary quantity.

2.      Rights are imposed by law rather than resulting from an agreement.

3.     The law does not apply to everyone in the world; rather, it only applies to certain individuals. As a result, it resembles a contractual right.[iii]



When parties are enriched without their consent, yet do not seek redress, this is known as unjust enrichment. Enrichment is a positive aspect of a person's life. [iv]A physical exertion is an option, but it is not required. Unjust enrichment can occur in a variety of settings. as an example:


·       The painter made the mistake of painting the wrong house. When a profit is made, the resident becomes wealthy. The resident will be unjustly rewarded if he or she decides not to compensate the painter.


·       Professional wedding planners can assist your friends with last-minute nuptials. She has gotten wealthy if her acquaintance accepts this assistance for her benefit. If the acquaintance refuses to pay for the service when it is billed, the acquaintance will be unjustly enriched.


·       A qualified doctor happens to pass by and saves her neighbor’s life by doing emergency surgery. Neighbors’ lives were enriched through emergency surgery. If the doctor then seeks formal invoice service and is not compensated, this is unjust enrichment. No one planned to provide the service in the example case, but it happened and brightened the lives of the receivers.





The Latin word quantum meruit refers to the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It means "what one earns" or "what one deserves." Simply expressed, it shows the true cost of the product or service given.

Although there is no formal contract, the law does require payment of reasonable compensation for the work and materials delivered.[v]



Various standards must be evaluated or granted by a judge for quasi-contracts.

·       One party must be in a disadvantageous position, and one party must be unfairly enriched.

·       Recipients of unjust enrichment must be aware of their situation and accept the benefits they have received.

·       The uncompensated party must show that there has been undue enrichment.

·       The exchange must be held until payment is received.



Section 68 says if a person has supplied any necessary/condition in life to any such incapable person or he was legally bound to support such incapable person then he may get reimbursement from the property of such incapable person to whom he supplied with necessaries.

If the incapable person doesn’t have any property, then the supplier will not be able to get reimbursement.

Reimbursements are permitted under Section 68 if the following conditions are met:

·       The items which have been supplied must be the condition in life or essential for survival.

·       People to whom necessaries have been supplied musthave impairments and be incapable of acquiring such necessities. Incompetency to the contract has been defined in section 11 of the Indian Contract Act.

·       The person should have a legal obligation to assist such disabled people

·       The reimbursements can only be gotten from the property of the incapable person. If the incapable person does not have any property, then the reimbursement cannot be demanded.

Not only the supplies should be necessary, but also, they must be important to support people in their living environments. It also relies on the person's condition and needs at the time when the goods in the name of necessaries are delivered.

Example: A person has supplied necessaries to an orphaned child such as shelter, food, clothing, etc, and also beard all the expenses for his education. Then, he can demand reimbursements from the property of the minor (if any).[vi]



Those who want to pay money that others are legally obligated to pay and do so are entitled to recompense from others.

B, for example, rents Bengal land from A, the Zamindar. The income that A owes to the government is past due. As a result, the government put the land up for sale under tax legislation, resulting in the termination of B's lease. B pays the money that A should pay to the state to avert the sale. The amount paid to B must be refunded by A.

The following are the terms of Section 69 liability:

·       The plaintiffs are willing to pay. He doesn't require formal ownership of the land in exchange for payment. It is, nevertheless, frequently used to determine whether a plaintiff is interested.

·       Section 69 prohibits the court from restricting that a person who is uninterested in property may be interested in paying for it.

·       Defendants should not be forced to pay. He should only be concerned with making payments to safeguard his interests.

·       The defendants must be legally bound to make restitution.

·       Instead of paying himself, the plaintiff should have paid someone else.



When one person performs something lawfully for another person, donates something to another person with interest without the aim of doing it for free, or another person benefits from it. What was done or given must be paid or refunded by the latter.

Example: Whenever some person donates anything to the poor, he has no intention of doing this with charge. Hence, this act will be said to be done gratuitously and he cannot demand any compensation for the same. But, whenever supplies have been given non-gratuitously and the supply was lawful, one can get the compensation.

The following three elements must be completed before asserting the right to a proceeding under Section 70.

1.     The act must be permissible under the law.

2.     The act should not have been done gratuitously by the person.

3.     Those who act must have reaped the benefits.

For example, the village's irrigation tank was renovated by the government. Zamindars have been indirectly rewarded for such efforts of renovating the irrigation tanks by the government because now the water of the irrigation tank will be reaching the zamindars' land also. Then, the zamindars are liable to compensate the government for the same.[vii]



When it comes to locating and managinglost assets that belong to others, the following criteria should be observed.

1.      Take care of things as if you were the legal owner.

2.      There is no legal right to deliver the object that has been already located.

3.     Ensure that the item is returned to its rightful owner.

For example, Karthik owns and operates anelectronic shop. Ankita went to buy a laptop from him, but she left her wallet at the store. Unfortunately, Karthik is unable to authenticate her identity using the documents in her suitcase. Karthik places her wallet on the cash register and waits for her to return. Karthik clerk Ajay discovers a wallet on the counter and places it in the closet without informing Karthik. He completes his duties and returns home. When Karthik arrives, he is unable to locate Ankita's wallet. He is responsible for damages because he did not treat the wallet with the care that a reasonable person would.[viii]


When someone receives something as a result of "extortion," they must repay it.

For example, Navrana and Rajkumar, share an apartment and split rent payments in half. Navrana has paid the landlord again, even though Rajkumar has already paid the full amount of the rent. The landlord is liable for restoring the money provided by the renter in this situation.[ix]



A quasi-contract can be thought of as either a legal or a constructive contract. This is effectively a made-up contract intended to provide relief to the offending party, rather than an actual contract. The parties' intent will be not taken into account in the case of a quasi-contract. In an explicit contract, on the other hand, the parties' intent is crucial because there is no contract unless the parties intend to enter into one. The parties' obligations define the contract and form the terms of the contract in an explicit contract. In the case of a quasi-contract, however, the duty emerges from the contract's evolution.[x]



The quasi-contract concept is frequently overlooked, yet it nevertheless holds a significant position because it is founded on the values of justice and impartiality. Even though in Indian contract law, quasi-contracts have a new name, however, the principle's basic character and substance have not changed significantly. Quantum revenue is a concept used in the context of quasi-contracts. This determines the extent of the plaintiff's pain. If someone breaks the contract on purpose, the chances of the quasi-contract being used are slim. If the employee intentionally violates the contract, however, this form of penalty is frequently less severe. The quasi-contract is an important aspect of contract law, and the aggrieved will get compensation if someone is unjustly benefited as a result of it.

This blog is authored by JAY KUMAR GUPTA, a student of School of Law, NMIMS Bangalore, currently in the first-year pursuing BBA LL.B.(Hons.)