Abstract
The doctrine of unconscionability has emerged as a significant equitable principle within contract law, enabling courts to invalidate or refuse enforcement of agreements that are fundamentally unjust, oppressive, or exploitative. Rooted in English equitable jurisprudence and subsequently incorporated into Indian contract law through judicial interpretation, the doctrine seeks to preserve contractual fairness by protecting parties subjected to unequal bargaining power, coercion, undue influence, or deceptive practices. This article examines the historical evolution and conceptual foundations of the doctrine, tracing its development from English common law to its contemporary application within the Indian legal framework. It critically analyses the statutory provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly those relating to coercion, undue influence, free consent, and unlawful consideration, alongside landmark judicial decisions that have expanded the doctrine's scope. The article further explores the essential elements of unconscionable contracts, including unequal bargaining power, absence of free consent, unfair contractual terms, and fraudulent inducement, while distinguishing between procedural and substantive unconscionability. It also evaluates the recommendations of the Law Commission of India concerning judicial intervention in unfair contractual arrangements. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology based on statutory interpretation, judicial precedents, and scholarly literature. It concludes that although the Indian Contract Act does not expressly codify the doctrine of unconscionability, judicial innovation has effectively incorporated equitable principles to ensure that contractual freedom does not become an instrument of exploitation. The doctrine thus serves as a vital mechanism for balancing the principle of pacta sunt servanda with the constitutional values of equity, justice, and fairness in contractual relationships.