On the one hand, contracts between unmarried persons to live together were considered unenforceable and illegal because they promoted immorality. It was stated in Fender v. St. John-Mildmay that an immoral promise between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to live together without marriage cannot be enforced by law. Such an agreement was considered illegal on grounds of immorality. But over time, the law has changed and now single men and women have permission to live together and maintain a domestic relationship without getting married. But “extramarital” cohabitation is still considered immoral and therefore unenforceable. Therefore, knowledge of the other party`s profession of prostitution and the purpose for which the proceeds provided by it are to be used are two important factors in maintaining a contract with a prostitute illegally on grounds of immorality. At the same time, a contract relating to the allocation of housing to a prostitute for the purpose of residence and not for the exercise of her profession was considered to be a lawful contract, so that the owner of the dwelling was entitled to claim the rent of the dwelling rented to him. This was established in Appleton v. Campbell.
Moreover, the scope and scope of null and void agreements is broader than that of unlawful agreements. Not all null and void agreements can be described as illegal; However, all illegal agreements are void from the start. Null and void agreements are not punishable under the law. The parties are not criminally liable for the conclusion of void agreements. On the contrary, illegal agreements are subject to the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, parties to an illegal agreement are criminally liable for their actions in the execution of such agreements. It is commonplace that a person who knowingly enters into a contract with an inappropriate object cannot assert his rights with respect to such a contract. In particular, nowhere does the law define the terms “public order” or “contrary to public order” or “contrary to public order”. It may be noted, however, that the term “public policy” could clearly refer to matters of public or public interest and the interest of the public as a whole. “Public Policy” is “. a vague and unsatisfactory term intended to create uncertainty and error when applied to the decision on legal rights; it can be understood in different senses; it can and does, in the ordinary sense, political expediency or what is best for the common good of the Community; and in this sense, there can be any diversity of opinion; according to the education, habits, talents and dispositions of each person who must decide whether or not an act is contrary to public order. According to Lord Atkin18, 2.
Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 – What considerations and sections are lawful and what is not The consideration or the subject matter of an agreement is lawful unless prohibited by law; or is of such a nature that, if authorized, it would nullify the provisions of a statute; or fraudulent; or involves or implies a violation of someone else`s person or property; or the Court considers them immoral or contrary to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or the object of an agreement is considered illegal. Any agreement whose object or consideration is illegal is null and void. In the cases referred to in Article 23, it is appropriate to examine or examine whether the Article invalidates an agreement on the basis of the objects or whether the consideration is unlawful. The three situations mentioned above, namely (i) the consideration for the agreement, (ii) the object of the agreement and (iii) the agreement must also be respected, and the three principles deriving from the article are as follows: (i) an agreement or contract is void if its purpose is to commit an illegal act; (ii) if it is expressly or implicitly prohibited by law, and (iii) if its execution is not possible without disobedience to a law. In the figure above, A B made an offer and received a commitment from him. However, the purpose of this contract, i.e. the commission of the offence of theft by B, is not legal and punishable by nature. It is precisely this subject of the agreement that makes it an illegal agreement. Both parties to this contract are criminally liable for their actions which fall within the scope and scope of the Indian Penal Code (ICC). In addition, this contract is null and void from the beginning, that is, null and void from the beginning.
This contract cannot be legally performed because it requires the execution of a specific act prohibited and punishable by law. The first types of agreements that fall into the category of immorality are agreements entered into by the parties to obtain the divorce of the third party. Thus, an agreement, Baivijli v. Nansa Nagar, in which a woman received money from a man to end her married life by divorcing her husband and was deemed illegal and void with the promise to marry him accordingly, and therefore the money given was deemed irrecoverable. Similarly, cases where agreements have been concluded between the parties where one of the parties promises to marry the other on the death of his spouse or after the divorce of his partner are considered immoral and therefore illegal. 3. In Re: K.L. Gauba (23.04.1954 – BOMHC) [AIR 1954 Bom 478]. Para 11: “. The freedom of the citizen, as well as the freedom of counsel to enter into a contract, are always subject to the overriding considerations of public policy set out at p. 23 of the Indian Contracts Act. That freedom is also subject to the other considerations set out in p.
23. The word “law” in section 23(1) refers to the law of the courts, that is, the law promulgated by the government, and a party to the contract is not allowed to assert claims on the basis of a contract prohibited by law. Whether a particular transaction is prohibited by a statute or tends to frustrate its provisions is always a matter of statutory interpretation, the rule of which is that it must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the persons who enact it, and such intent must be derived from what they have said in the law. Also with the case of Gherulal Parakh against Mahadeodas Maiya and Ors.  Under section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, the scope of immorality was limited only to cases involving sexual immorality. Thus, all agreements concluded for cohabitation, agreements to facilitate divorce, agreements on the sale or rental of things used by prostitutes in a brothel, mediation contracts, marriage contracts for remuneration, etc. are considered immoral to me and therefore illegal and unenforceable. Thus, after this case, only agreements that contradict the “sexual” moral norms of the place were deemed illegal because of immorality. Agreements concluded for the purchase, rental or acquisition of property of a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse with that person or for the purpose of operating a brothel, i.e. prostitution, are considered null and void because they violate recognized moral norms and are therefore illegal.
Therefore, such agreements become unenforceable in the eyes of the law. A change of era always notices a change in social norms, especially when it comes to determining what is immoral and therefore illegal. It is therefore argued that it is not possible for the law to impose a generally accepted limitation on the scope of immoral contracts. Immorality is a fluid concept that can only be determined by current rules and standards and recent judgments. But the consequence of an agreement that amounts to immorality will always remain the same, which is illegal and unenforceable. The Supreme Court of India has considered some article 23 cases and has concluded that certain contractual acts are null and void. In the case entitled “ONGC Ltd.c. Saw Pipes Ltd.” 21 In interpreting the meaning of the term `public policy` in the present case, the Hon`ble Court has held that various authorities have held on several occasions that the concept of `public policy` does not allow a precise definition and may vary from one generation to another and from time to time ….