Major/Adult

Posted on by user

Introduction

The legal status of a “major” or “adult” — the point at which an individual acquires full legal capacity and responsibility — is a deceptively simple concept with far‑reaching practical consequences across contract, family, criminal, electoral and guardianship law. In India the age of majority is 18 years but the legal consequences of being a major touch discrete statutory regimes (contractual capacity, juvenile justice, marriage law, voting rights, partnership law, etc.) that practitioners must marshal precisely. This article sets out the statutory skeleton, the day‑to‑day courtroom applications and the tactical moves a litigator should know when a client’s legal capacity (majority/minority) is in issue.

Core Legal Framework

Principal Judicial Authorities (select)

  • Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (Privy Council, 1903) — foundational authority followed in India:
  • Principle: A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio and cannot be ratified on attaining majority; exceptions (established in common law practice and subsequent Indian jurisprudence) include liability for necessaries supplied to the minor and obligations arising from restitutionary claims in certain circumstances.

  • Practical effect: Parties dealing with apparent minors cannot assume the contract will be enforceable against the minor on attaining majority.

  • Select Supreme Court directions on juvenile procedures and treatment of children in custody:

  • (Example) Sheela Barse v. Union of India (and subsequent judicial pronouncements) — Supreme Court recognition that children in conflict with law and children in custody require distinct procedures, safeguards and institutional arrangements. (Practitioners should rely on JJ Act plus Supreme Court directions that reinforce protective processes.)

Practical Application and Nuances

This is where majority/minority becomes material in litigation, transactions and criminal practice.

  1. Capacity to contract and commercial transactions
  2. Legal rule: Contracts with a person who has not attained majority are void ab initio (Mohori Bibee). They cannot be enforced against the minor in ordinary contract law.
  3. Common exceptions/practical outcomes:
    • Necessaries: Suppliers of “necessaries” (goods suitable to the minor’s condition in life and actual requirements) can recover their reasonable price — courts look to facts. (This follows common law principles applied in India.)
    • Restitutionary claims: In some factual matrices restitution may be possible (restitution for benefit retained), but the remedy is limited; the ordinary contractual remedy is not available.

  4. Practical examples:

    • Property sale deed executed by a minor: deed is voidable; purchaser bears risk; if third‑party purchaser protected under Registration/Transfer rules, tracing title may be complex — check whether guardian consent or court approval existed.
    • Loan agreement with person claiming minority: if defendant pleads minority as defence, plaintiff must prove majority at time of contract (birth certificate, school record, Aadhaar, PAN, passport, exam certificates). If proof absent, recovery unlikely.

  5. Litigation strategy where minority/majority is disputed (civil)

  6. Plead early: If a party intends to take advantage of minority, plead it as an issue and seek interim relief (injunctions) where necessary.
  7. Evidence of age: primary documents are birth certificate, school leaving certificate, passport, Aadhaar. Secondary evidence includes entries in municipal records, baptismal certificates, and academic records. Courts may also accept contemporaneous documents like medical records or affidavits.
  8. Medical age determination: courts sometimes direct ossification/x‑ray or dental tests where documentary evidence is absent or suspect. Expect contest on methodology, consent, and reliance — prepare to challenge chain of custody and the margin of error of such tests.

  9. Burden of proof: The party asserting minority bears the initial burden of proving minority; the party seeking to avoid the defence must rebut with proof of majority or prove estoppel or other statutory exceptions.

  10. Criminal prosecution and juvenilehood

  11. Apart from IPC Sections 82 and 83 (infancy defenses), the JJ Act governs persons under 18.
  12. Arrest and custody: If accused is under 18, custodial and procedural safeguards apply (juvenile justice board, child welfare committee, no inhuman treatment, presence of guardian, legal aid).
  13. Heinous offences and borderline ages: JJ Act (2015) created a scheme for preliminary assessment in certain heinous offences where offenders between 16–18 may be transferred to adult trial in exceptional circumstances; the Board’s assessment and the statutory procedure are critical. Practically, age determination and psychological assessment occupy centre stage.

  14. Practical examples:

    • Accused claims to be juvenile: defence counsel must immediately produce age proof, press for transfer to Juvenile Justice Board, and insist on statutory safeguards. Prosecution must also verify age at earliest stage to avoid violations of statutory safeguards.

  15. Family law and marriage

  16. Age of majority (18) intersects with minimum marriageable age statutes and child marriage prohibition. Marriages below statutory ages attract separate doctrines (void/voidable, criminal offences under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, etc.). Majority is relevant to the capacity to consent and to contract a valid marriage under personal laws and statutory prohibition.

  17. Electoral and civil rights

  18. Attainment of majority (18) confers the right to vote (Article 326), to enter into contractual obligations, sue and be sued in full capacity, and to assume or vacate guardianship rights as relevant statutes provide.

  19. Partnership and commercial law

  20. A minor cannot be a full partner (but may be admitted to benefits under Section 30 Partnership Act); consequences for firm’s liabilities must be carefully navigated in transactions involving persons described as minors.

Landmark Judgments (selected and practical import)

  • Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (Privy Council, 1903)

  • Rule: Contracts by minors are void; cannot be ratified on attaining majority. Practical import: litigators representing creditors must identify alternative bases for recovery (necessaries, restitution, guarantees by major co‑signatories, or find contracting party who is major).

  • Sheela Barse v. Union of India (and subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements concerning children in custody)

  • Rule/principle: Custodial treatment, juvenile detention, and procedural safeguards for minors must conform to statutory and constitutional protections; courts have issued directions on separate facilities and procedural protections.
  • Practical import: Criminal practitioners must ensure statutory juvenile protocols are followed on arrest and remand; failure to do so can vitiate detention and lead to relief for the accused.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

  • For plaintiffs/creditors seeking enforcement against a person who may be a minor:
  • Do not assume document formalities suffice — establish majority with primary, contemporaneous records before instituting suit.
  • Consider alternative defendants: guarantors, parents, or guardians who may have co‑signed or benefited.

  • If litigating where minor is party: seek early order requiring party to produce age proof; seek preservation of assets where risk of dissipation exists.

  • For defendants claiming minority:

  • Plead minority at the earliest stage and produce documentary proof promptly.
  • If documents are absent or inconsistent, obtain supporting testimony (parents, school authorities) and be prepared to consent to scientifically reliable age determination procedures if strategically useful.

  • In criminal cases, emphasize statutory protections under JJ Act; secure transfer to Juvenile Justice Board and insist on production before the appropriate authority.

  • In transactional practice:

  • For corporate/commercial counsel: verify counterparty’s age via robust KYC; where doubt exists, get guardian’s consent or court approval for transactions affecting immovable property of a minor.

  • For real‑estate and property conveyances: check whether guardian’s orders/court permissions were obtained; risk of setting aside is real where minor’s signature or consent alone is relied upon.

  • Pitfalls to avoid:

  • Relying solely on self‑attested affidavits of age — these are often insufficient against credible documentary proof to the contrary.
  • Ignoring statutory juvenile procedures in criminal matters — lapses may result in orders quashing arrest or evidence.
  • Assuming estoppel will bind minors — courts are cautious to apply estoppel against a minor; equitable doctrines cannot be used to deprive a minor of statutory protection without clear basis.

Conclusion

“Majority” in India is a single statutory milestone (18 years) but its practical consequences are manifold and context‑sensitive. Whether you are enforcing a contract, defending a criminal charge, challenging the validity of a transaction, or safeguarding the rights of a child in custody, the question “Was the person a major at the relevant time?” will determine available remedies and procedural pathways. Practitioners must (i) identify the governing statute for the dispute (Contract Act, IPC, JJ Act, POCSO, Partnership Act, etc.), (ii) front‑load proof of age with primary documentation and reliable secondary evidence if needed, and (iii) tailor relief around the narrow exceptions (necessaries, restitution) and procedural safeguards that the law preserves for minors. Mastery of these interlocking issues is essential — imperfect proof or procedural lapses on age questions can be dispositive of an entire case.