Agreements concluded for the purchase, rental or acquisition of possession of a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of an unlawful sexual relationship with that person or for the purpose of operating a brothel, i.e. prostitution, are considered not to conform to recognized moral standards and are therefore illegal. Therefore, such agreements do not become enforceable in the eyes of the law. Since immorality is a very complete word, it depends on a person`s behavior that separates it from the moral or social norms that are constantly changing over time. That is why the law itself has found that no particular norm or concrete limit could be established to assess the extent of immorality, because the evolution of social norms clearly makes it possible to consider as immoral what is moral at one time. However, the list of exceptions to freedom of contract in the Contracts Act is not final. For example, no law invalidates a contractual obligation contrary to the law. Other exceptions can be found elsewhere in Swedish legislation and only some in case law. One of these unwritten exceptions is the immoral contract rule.
But with changing times and social norms, the courts no longer felt the need to limit the scope of immoral treaties to sexual immorality. In defiance of the various judgments of the Supreme Court and as an example of legal adventurism, the Delhi Supreme Court has issued a ruling that expands the scope of immoral treaties, including by incorporating agreements that deprive the parties of their interest. This was the case of the Union of India against. M NK Garg & Co., in which it was found that the illegal detention of another person`s money for a very long time is totally immoral and also contrary to public order. But at the same time, the law could not have prevented his hands from determining the extent of immorality and determining which treaties would be deemed immoral and therefore unenforceable. Therefore, in the 1959 case of Gherulal Parakh vs. Mahadeodas Maiya and Ors, it determined the fundamental scope of immorality by limiting it to sexually immoral treaties, because before this pioneering case, all cases reported under immorality concerned only sexual immorality. . .