Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answers with relevant provisions and judicial pronouncements…

(a) Minor’s contract The statement is broadly correct but requires qualification. Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a minor is incompetent to contract, and Section 10 makes competence a condition of a valid contract. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council held that an agreement with a minor is void ab initio, not merely voidable; it is a nullity from birth, and the minor may repudiate it at any time. “Void” and “void ab initio” are often used together, but the latter emphasises that no legal relation ever arose, so estoppel cannot bind the minor. The position is not absolute: a minor’s estate must reimburse for necessaries under Section 68, and contracts beneficial to the minor, such as employment, licence or scholarship, may be valid. Thus, while the general rule is that a minor’s contract is void ab initio, exceptions show that the law balances incapacity with practical protection.

(b) RTI Act, 2019 Right to Information is closely linked to Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, though the RTI Act, 2005 creates a statutory right. The 2019 amendments, which altered the appellate structure and the tenure, salary and service conditions of Information Commissioners, were challenged as impairing independence. In Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, holding that the amendments do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a) or 21. The Court recognised that the right to information is a statutory right, but an important facet of free speech and democratic accountability. The decision is significant because it sustains the Act while leaving room for legislative regulation. Nevertheless, the judgment does not erase concerns that executive control over commissioners may weaken the institutional independence needed for effective transparency. The Act remains constitutional, but its efficacy depends on independent implementation.

(c) Agency The statement is correct. Agency is a legal relationship, not mere assistance. Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act defines an agent as a person authorised to act on behalf of a principal, and such authority must be capable of creating legal relations with third parties. In Lakshmi Narayan Ram Gopal v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court emphasised that a person who merely performs work for another is not necessarily an agent; the decisive factor is the existence of authority to bind the principal. A servant may act under the master’s control without being an agent, while an independent contractor may perform services for another without creating agency. Similarly, a friend, volunteer or mere representative who lacks authority to negotiate or contract does not become an agent. Thus, “acting for another” is a factual description, whereas agency is a juridical status founded on authority and the capacity to affect legal relations.

(d) Air Act The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is not ineffective in principle, but it is inadequate in practice. Sections 19 to 22 provide penalties for contraventions, yet the penalties are low, and enforcement is fragmented among CPCA, EPCA, State Boards and local authorities. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and the Delhi air pollution cases filled the gap by directing CNG, emission standards, closure of polluting industries and monitoring. EPCA recommendations and the Delhi-NCR Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) have added administrative rigour by linking AQI thresholds to restrictions on construction, industry and vehicles. However, the Act lacks a comprehensive emergency framework, real-time compliance, and strong inter-state coordination. Judicial directions have been effective but episodic. The law must be modernised with stricter penalties, a unified command structure and enforceable standards to address Delhi-NCR’s recurring pollution emergencies.

(e) Trademark law Globalisation has made brand names, trade names and trademarks valuable assets, and India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999 responds to that reality. Section 2(1)(zb) defines a trademark broadly, Section 9 lays down absolute grounds for registration, and Section 11 deals with relative grounds, including conflict with earlier marks. The Supreme Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) recognised trans-border reputation, holding that a mark can acquire goodwill in India even through foreign use, preventing free-riding. Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) strengthened the test for deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion, especially in medicinal products. TRIPS compliance has further raised the standard by protecting well-known marks and requiring effective remedies. Passing off, a common-law tort protecting goodwill, complements statutory infringement, which is broader and does not always require proof of misrepresentation. An effective trademark law is therefore essential to protect brand value, consumer confidence and fair competition in a global market.