John Vallamattom & Anr. vs Union of India
Citation: (2003) 6 SCC 611
Important Provisions:
- Constitution Of India
- Article 14- Equality before Law
- Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of caste , sex , creed , religion , place of birth.
- Article 32- Remedies of enforcement of rights
- The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Facts of the case –
The facts of the case state that John Vallamattom is a Christian priest from Kerala and the other petitioner is also a Christian. They have filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in 1997 stating that Section – 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 discriminates the Christians because it imposes arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on them related to donation of their personal property for various religious or charitable purposes through will. It stated that a Christian having a nephew/niece, or any other near relation is not eligible to bequeath the property for religious or charitable purposes unless a prescribed procedure is followed. That procedure was complicated, harsh, and rigorous. So, the petitioners sought that section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 be declared as unconstitutional.
Issues and Fact of Law
Q. Whether Section – 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is constitutionally valid?
ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE:
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was violating Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution as this particular section has discriminatory provisions against Christians, against a Christian person’s testamentary disposition, against using personal property for religious or charitable works, against a Christian who has a near relative, against a person who is Christian when he dies within 12 months of executing the will that he has no control of.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that an Indian citizen should have the freedom and liberty to whom the person chooses as his beneficiaries of his will and the purpose of the passing down the personal property, which is here violated by Section 118 of the Act.
- The learned counsel for respondents argued that this Act is implemented earlier than when the Constitution of India and it continues to be in force.
- It was also argued that similarly, Indian Parliament was also not bound by legislative replacements and developments made on their behalf by England or any other foreign nation. The learned counsels also contended that Indian Christians form an individual and different section of the society which cannot be kept in the same placing as that of Muslims and Hindus in India for passing down for religious and charitable uses.
- Finally, the learned counsel contended that marriage and succession is of secular nature which cannot be included within religious guarantees that are provided under the Indian Constitution.
Another point to be remembered is that the testators of Christians and other religions are supposed to be classified under one criterion and not based on the religion. This is because they represent a homogenous group and are more of a reason they cannot be classified. A side note to this is the fact that the way article 14 was designed, comparing to this section is very contrasting. Article 14 was designed to give two concepts12. The two concepts are ‘equality before law and ‘equal protection of laws.’ Whether the first concept is followed can be discussed in another paper but seeing this case clearly the second concept has not done its justice.
One more thing the act does not have much of a benefit for Christians separately then why only burdens for them? When it is named as Indian succession act it means that this act is for the citizens of India and not the Christians and Hindus. It also makes sense that this cannot be a burden only to one group of the society. It was still not understood on what grounds was the provisions made. The judge also could not understand why when the testator has a wife it is allowed but is not allowed when he has a nephew. Seeing this, it can also be said that the law is more personal rather than extending to a group. This was just the beginning. There were three more articles. Article 15 even though was told by the judge that is not a violation, can still be considered as a complimenting article, and it was clear as to why it was violated that basis of race was being violated.
Uniform civil code for a country like India is the most complicated form of law out there. This is because for cases like this, for sure it will truly help but on a deeper level that will not be true because there is a chance that those laws might not be fit for certain religions. In this case, there was a clear violation of the law because it was being a burden and not helping the Christian community.
The Applicant –
The applicant argued that s. 118 of the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution because it discriminates:
- against Christians.
- against testamentary disposition by a Christian.
- against religious and charitable use of property.
- against a Christian who has a near relative; and
- against a Christian who dies within twelve months of executing his Will of which he has no control.
- Furthermore, they argued that a citizen of India has a right of a freedom to choose his beneficiaries under his Will as well as the purpose of bequest.
The Respondent –
- The respondents argued that the Act pre-dates the Constitution and so continues to be in force. Likewise, the Indian Parliament was not bound by any legislative changes or development in this behalf in England or any other foreign country.
- They also argued that Indian Christians form a separate and distinct class and cannot be treated on equal footing 2 to Muslims or Hindus as regards bequests for religious or charitable purposes.
- Finally, they submitted that marriage and succession were of secular character and cannot be included in the religious guarantees within the Constitution.
The very same question was raised before the Kerala High Court. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Preman vs. Union of India –
a) discriminates against a Christian vis-à-vis non-Christians.
b) discriminates against testamentary disposition by a Christian vis-à- vis non-testamentary disposition.
c) discriminates against religious and charitable use of property vis-à- vis all other uses including not so desirable purposes.
d) discriminates against the Christian who has a nephew, niece or nearest relative vis-a-vis a Christian who has no relative at all; and
e) discriminates a Christian who dies within 12 months of execution of the Will.
In my opinion, there is no justification in retaining the impugned provision in the statute book, which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, since the mortmain statutes were repealed by the Charities Act, 1960 and by that the very basis and foundation of the impugned provision has become non-existent. The impugned provision is also violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution since it is an essential and integral part of Christian religious faith to give property for religious and charitable purposes. no control.
The impugned provision is also attacked as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution because the restriction on bequest for religious and charitable purpose is confined to Christians alone and not to members of other communities. In my opinion, the classification between testators who belong to Christian community and those belonging to other religions is extremely unreasonable. All the testators who bequeath property for religious and charitable purpose belong to the same category irrespective of their religious identity and so the impugned provision, which discriminates between the members of one community as against another, amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judgement – It is pertinent to notice that the judgment of the Kerala High Court was not appealed against by the respondent therein, namely, the Union of India. Even after the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 16.10.1998, the Parliament did not remove the discrimination. Under such circumstances, this Court, in my opinion, in exercise of its jurisdiction and to remedy violation of fundamental rights, are bound to declare the impugned provision as invalid and being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Judge mentioned about Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which provides equality before law within the territorial ambit of India. The restriction put upon by a statute under law can be held correct nevertheless when the person on whom it applies of a distinct and separate section and such differentiation is justifiable relying upon intelligible differentia with the aim to be fulfilled. The Judge stated that the restricted that Section 118 imposes was to prevent ill-mannered or ill-thought passing down of personal property under an influence of a religion, such restrictions will cause a great impact on the individual who wants to dispose their personal property in a certain way which will have influence after that person’s death. The idea of ownership of property also involves right to pass down their property by their own will. The Indian Succession Act confers this right to all persons irrespective of their age, religion, caste or creed. The Judge stated by pointing out that Section 118 imposes restrictions on Indian Christians only. The Judge after inspecting Indian and International laws, held that there is no ground to restrict a person from testamentary disposition of personal property for charitable concerns that provide different kinds of relief and provide public utility. Since charity is philanthropic and does not amount to religious influence, the Judge held it makes no sense to restrict passing down the personal property for religious or charitable concerns and such restriction is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Judge further stated that the right given under Article 15 is personal rather than it gets applied to a group and thereby it was not relevant to the current petition. Thereby, the Judge held that as per unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 being violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution will be strike down as unconstitutional.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
Written by Maitreyee Srivastava
