Frozen In Time: Why Krishnaveni Judgment Fails Modern Minors?
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 4, 2025
- 1 min read
Aditya Goel, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
What happens when the law meant to protect minors ends up limiting them? The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Krishnaveni v. M.A. Shagul Hameed once again declares that all contracts involving minors are void from the very beginning. By leaning heavily on Mathai Mathai and the much older Mohori Bibee precedent, the Court closes the door on a more thoughtful, flexible understanding of how minors engage with the world today.
This paper questions whether such rigidity still makes sense in an era where minors are no longer passive dependents but active participants in economic and digital spaces. Should a contract that clearly benefits a minor be treated the same as one that exploits them? By drawing on Indian case law and global approaches, the paper explores why the law should allow space for fairness, context, and discretion.
Rather than simply criticising the judgment, the paper makes a case for updating our legal imagination, one that still protects vulnerable minors, but without assuming that every contract is a threat. Because sometimes, refusing to adapt in the name of clarity does more harm than good.
