1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement "Minority can only be claimed as a shield but not as a sword" encapsulates a fundamental principle of contract law concerning minors: the law protects minors from contractual liability, but they cannot use their minority to defraud others or enforce contracts that are not to their benefit while simultaneously disclaiming their own obligations. An agreement with a minor is generally void ab initio, meaning it is void from the very beginning and has no legal effect. This doctrine, established to safeguard minors from exploitation due to their presumed lack of maturity and judgment, prevents them from being bound by contracts. The 'shield' aspect means a minor can always plead minority to escape liability under a contract. The 'sword' aspect implies that a minor cannot use their minority to actively gain an advantage or enforce a contract against an adult while simultaneously repudiating their own part of the agreement. For instance, a minor cannot misrepresent their age to obtain a loan and then use minority as a defense to avoid repayment, while still keeping the money.

However, there are specific situations where a minor can be held liable or where contracts involving minors are enforceable:

• Contracts for Necessaries (Section 68, Indian Contract Act, 1872): If a person supplies necessaries suited to the minor's condition in life, the minor's estate is liable to reimburse the supplier. 'Necessaries' include not just basic needs but also things essential for the minor's reasonable comfort and social standing. The minor himself is not personally liable, but his property can be attached.
• Contracts by Guardian for Minor's Benefit: A contract entered into by a minor's guardian on behalf of the minor, for the minor's benefit, and within the guardian's authority, can be enforced by or against the minor, provided it is for the minor's welfare and within the guardian's powers.
• Minor as Beneficiary/Promisee: A minor can be a beneficiary or a promisee in a contract. While they cannot incur obligations, they can receive benefits. For example, a minor can be a payee of a promissory note or a beneficiary of an insurance policy.
• Minor as Agent: A minor can act as an agent, but they cannot be held personally liable for their acts as an agent. The principal will be bound by the minor agent's actions.
• Ratification upon Attaining Majority: An agreement made by a minor cannot be ratified upon attaining majority, as the original agreement was void ab initio. A fresh contract would need to be entered into.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Indian Contract Act, 1872:
  • Section 10: What agreements are contracts (requires parties competent to contract).
  • Section 11: Who are competent to contract (every person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law).
  • Section 68: Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his account.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 Cal. 539 (PC): This landmark Privy Council case established that a contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio, not merely voidable. A minor had mortgaged his property, and the mortgagee sought to enforce the contract. The court held that since the minor was incompetent to contract, the agreement was void from the beginning.
• Leslie v. Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607: This English case reinforced that a minor cannot be sued for money lent, even if obtained by misrepresentation of age, as it would indirectly enforce a void contract. The court held that restitution is only possible if the specific goods obtained by fraud are still identifiable and in the minor's possession.

4. Clear Conclusion: The principle that minority acts as a shield, not a sword, is a cornerstone of contract law, primarily aimed at protecting minors from their own inexperience and potential exploitation. While agreements with minors are generally void, exceptions exist, particularly for necessaries, to ensure their welfare and prevent unjust enrichment, without undermining the core protective intent of the law.