In Australia and the UK, contracts with minors in sports and entertainment are not uncommon. Generally, such contracts are voidable at the option of the minor. However, when contracts fall within the category of beneficial service, as is the case with most professional sports or entertainment contracts, they will be enforceable against the minor. Indian courts do not prescribe to this view holding contracts with minors, void ab initio and unenforceable against contractual parties, with few exceptions. The policy rationale is embedded in protecting minors from their own rash decisions and preventing unscrupulous parties from taking advantage of a minor’s nascent mental capacity. By analysing divergent approaches on the validity of minors’ contracts in three common law jurisdictions—Australia, India and the UK—the authors highlight inadequacies in legal pronouncements by Indian courts. In India, the legal non-existence and unenforceability of service contracts with minors renders it futile for them or their representatives from negotiating favourable contractual terms beyond welfare measures provided by law as these are unlikely to be upheld. This paper argues that India’s narrow approach fails to acknowledge practical realities of minors’ participation in the increasingly commercialised sports and entertainment industry. In light of more practical approaches in other common law jurisdictions, the authors set out policy recommendations and suggest reforms to the legal position on minors’ capacity to contract in India.

在澳大利亚和英国，与未成年人签订体育和娱乐合同的情况并不少见。一般来说，此类合同可由未成年人选择撤销。但是，当合同属于有益服务类别时，就像大多数职业体育或娱乐合同一样，它们将对未成年人强制执行。印度法院没有规定与未成年人签订合同的这种观点，自始无效并且对合同方不可执行，几乎没有例外。政策的基本原理在于保护未成年人免受自己草率决定的影响，并防止不法分子利用未成年人的新生心理能力。通过分析三个普通法司法管辖区——澳大利亚、印度和英国——对未成年人合同有效性的不同方法，作者强调了印度法院在法律声明中的不足之处。在印度，与未成年人的服务合同在法律上不存在且无法执行，这使得他们或其代表无法就法律规定的福利措施之外的有利合同条款进行谈判，因为这些条款不太可能得到维护。本文认为，印度的狭隘做法未能承认未成年人参与日益商业化的体育和娱乐行业的实际现实。鉴于其他普通法司法管辖区更实用的方法，作者提出了政策建议，并建议对印度未成年人签订合同能力的法律地位进行改革。