In England, both agreements are illegal and unenforceable. However, in India, only agreements that appear to be entered into for gambling purposes in disputes and for breaches or to repress others, by encouraging lay litigation, are not enforced, but not all support and championship agreements are enforced. It is clear that the opinion and interpretation of public order is broad and that, on the basis of agreement and opposition, it is to the Discretion of the Tribunal itself. If an agreement is declared contrary to public policy, it will also be rescinded under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. If an agreement is invalidated as opposed to public policy, it cannot challenge the order of the right of citizens to enter into a contract. All agreements affecting or impeding the administration of justice are deemed null and void under section 23 of the Contract Act of 1872. The courts must carefully consider the issue before moralizing the doctrine of public order for reasons of the development of public opinion. Agreements relating to public functions and the appointments of civil servants may lead to the cancellation of the agreement in the context of public trade. Many people practice selling positions recommended for government employees, but by virtue of corruption, they tend to sell those seats with juicy sums of money. Such agreements are contrary to public order, because equal opportunities should be granted, which would be unfair to those who fought.
Certain agreements or contracts are supposed to oppose public order if they encourage violations of land law or policy under an agreement or if they appear to degrade or violate the state or its citizens. The term “public policy” can also be characterized as what like-minded people will think of certain acts and laws. Some laws are deemed to be nullified because they fall under the category of public order. Public policy is such a coherent instrument, which does not require any government to take decisions against public policy. Public policies will carry with them a foreign element, which implies deceit and treason that justify legal consequences. An agreement to defeat the object of a law is illegal. Therefore, an agreement on the demarcation period is annulled, as it would nullify the purpose of the statute of limitations. Under the Statute of Limitations, an infringement action must be filed within three years of the date of the offence.
An agreement to make this period more or less three years is therefore an insible. However, in practice, this has not been strictly enforced by the Indian courts. For example, a clause stating that “no action will be taken against the company in connection with that policy has been maintained after one year from the date on which the plea is invoked.” Similarly, an agreement to pay money to the parent/caregiver of a minor, taking into account his or her assumption of giving to minors in marriage, is not entitled, as it is contrary to public policy.