Law Commission Report No. 209- Proposal for Omission of Section 213 From the Indian Succession Act, 1925

8/18/2019 Law Commission Report No. 209- Proposal for Omission of Section 213 From the Indian Succession Act, 1925

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/law-commission-report-no-209-proposal-for-omission-of-section-213-from-the 1/28

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

LAW

COMMISSION

OF

INDIA

Proposal for omission of Section !" from t#e In$ian

S%ccession Act& !'()

Report No) *'

+,L- **.

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

/REPORT NO) *'0



Presente$ to Dr) 1) R) 2#ar$3a4& ,nion Minister

for La3 an$ +%stice& Ministr5 of La3 an$ +%stice&

Go6ernment of In$ia 75 Dr) +%stice AR)

La8s#manan& C#airman& La3 Commission of In$ia&

on t#e "*t# $a5 of +%l5& **.)

2

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

T#e !.t# La3 Commission 3as constit%te$ for a perio$ of

t#ree 5ears from !st Septem7er& **9 75 Or$er No)

A):(*!;!;**9<A$mn)III /LA0 $ate$ t#e !9t# Octo7er&

**9& iss%e$ 75 t#e Go6ernment of In$ia& Ministr5 of La3

an$ +%stice& Department of Le=al Affairs& Ne3 Del#i)

T#e La3 Commission consists of t#e C#airman& t#e

Mem7er<Secretar5& one f%ll<time Mem7er an$ se6en part<

time Mem7ers)

C#airman

1on>7le Dr) +%stice AR) La8s#manan

Mem7er<Secretar5

Dr) 2ra#m A) A=ra3al

F%ll<time Mem7er

Prof) Dr) Ta#ir Ma#moo$

Part<time Mem7ers

Dr) /Mrs)0 De6in$er ?%mari Ra#e4a

Dr) ?) N) C#an$rase8#aran Pillai

Prof) /Mrs)0 La8s#mi +am7#ol8ar

Smt) ?irti Sin=#

S#ri +%stice I) Ven8atanara5anaS#ri O)P) S#arma

Dr) /Mrs)0 S#5aml#a Papp%

T#e La3 Commission is locate$ in ILI 2%il$in=&

3

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

n$ Floor& 2#a=3an Das Roa$&

Ne3 Del#i<!!* **!

La3 Commission Staff

Mem7er<Secretar5

Dr) 2ra#m A) A=ra3al

Researc# Staff S#ri S%s#il ?%mar @ +oint Secretar5 La3 Officer

Ms) Pa3an S#arma @ A$$itional La3 Officer

S#ri +) T) S%laBan Rao @ A$$itional La3 Officer

S#ri Sar3an ?%mar @ Dep%t5 Le=al A$6iser

S#ri A) ?) ,pa$#5a5 @ Dep%t5 La3 Officer

Dr) V) ?) Sin=# @ Assistant Le=al A$6iser

S#ri C) Ra$#a ?ris#na @ Assistant Go6t) A$6ocate

A$ministrati6e Staff

S#ri D) C#o%$#%r5 @ ,n$er Secretar5

S#ri S) ?) 2as% @ Section Officer

Smt) Ra4ni S#arma @ Assistant Li7rar5

Information Officer

4

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

T#e teBt of t#is Report is a6aila7le on t#e Internet at

#ttp@;;333)la3commissionofin$ia)nic)in

Go6ernment of In$ia

La3 Commission of In$ia

T#e teBt in t#is $oc%ment /eBcl%$in= t#e Go6ernment

Lo=o0 ma5 7e repro$%ce$ free of c#ar=e in an5 format or

me$i%m pro6i$e$ t#at it is repro$%ce$ acc%ratel5 an$ not

%se$ in a mislea$in= conteBt) T#e material m%st 7e

ac8no3le$=e$ as t#e Go6ernment of In$ia cop5ri=#t an$

t#e title of t#e $oc%ment specifie$)

An5 en%iries relatin= to t#is Report s#o%l$ 7e a$$resse$

to t#e Mem7er<Secretar5 an$ sent eit#er 75 post to t#e

La3 Commission of In$ia& n$ Floor& ILI 2%il$in=&

2#a=3an Das Roa$& Ne3 Del#i<!!***!& In$ia or 75 email

to lci<$lanic)in

5

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan ILI Building (IInd Floor!

(Former Judge! "u#reme $ourt o% India Bhag&andas Road!

$hairman! La& $ommission o% India 'e& Delhi))* **)

+el., -)))23344/5 Fa0, -)))2333514

D 'o. 1(3)4*2**L$(L" 3* Jul! 2**

Dear Dr. Bhard&a i!

"u6, 7ro#osal %or omission o% "ection 2)3 %rom theIndian "uccession Act! )-25.

I ha8e great #leasure in su6mitting here&ith the 2*-th Re#ort o% the La& $ommission o% India on the a6o8e su6ect.

+he Indian "uccession (Amendment Act! 2**2 (21 o% 2**2amended sections 32 (devolution of such property and 2)3 (right asexecutor or legatee when established o% the Indian "uccession Act!)-25. 90#lanation to section 32 &as omitted relie8ing there6 a$hristian &ido& o% the 6ar to succeed distri6uti8e share o% her hus6and:s estate e8en i% there &as a 8alid contract made to that e%%ect

6e%ore her marriage. +he &ords ;or Indian $hristians< a%ter the &ord;=uhammadans< in su6section (2 o% section 2)3 &ere inserted. +heo#ening #ortion o% the said su6section (2 no& reads thus,

;(2 +his section shall not a##l in the case o% &ills made 6=uhammadans or Indian $hristians and shall onl a##l >??..<

+he result is that the #ro8ision o% su6section () o% section 2)3&hich necessitates grant o% #ro6ate o% the &ill or letters o%

administration &ith the &ill or &ith a co# o% an authenticated co#o% the &ill anne0ed! 6 a $ourt o% com#etent urisdiction in order toesta6lish the right as e0ecutor or legatee is no& not a##lica6le to the

&ills made not onl 6 =uhammadans 6ut also 6 Indian $hristians.But this #ro8ision continues to a##l

1

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

(i in the case o% &ills made 6 an @indu! Buddhist! "ikhor Jaina &here such &ills are o% the classes s#eci%ied inclauses (a and (6 o% section 5/! i.e.! &ills and codicilsmade 6 an @indu! Buddhist! "ikh or Jaina on or a%ter the )st da o% "e#tem6er! )/*! &ithin the territories&hich at the said date &ere su6ect to the Lieutenanto8ernor o% Bengal or &ithin the local limits o% the

ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh $ourts o% Judicature at =adras and Bom6a and all such &ills andcodicils made outside those territories and limits so %ar asthe relate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin thoseterritories or limits and

(ii in the case o% &ills made 6 an 7arsi ding a%ter the

commencement o% the Indian "uccession (AmendmentAct! )-12! &here such &ills are made &ithin the locallimits o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the

@igh $ourts at $alcutta! =adras and Bom6a and &heresuch &ills are made outside those limits! inso%ar as therelate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin those limits.

+he e0em#tion in res#ect o% the &ills made 6 =uslims under the #arent Act &as due to the =uslim 7ersonal La&. +he sti#ulationim#osed under the unamended section 2)3 o% the Act in res#ect o%

&ills made 6 an Indian $hristian! @indu! Buddhist! "ikh or Jaina&as the legac o% the colonial rule! &hich &as e0tended to 7arsis in)-12. +he discrimination against the &ills e0ecuted 6 the Indian

$hristians has no& 6een remo8ed 6 the 2**2 Amendment on an AllIndia 6asis.

+here is discrimination in res#ect o% &ills made 6 @indus!Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas or 7arsis! &here such &ills are made &ithinthe territories o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh$ourts o% Judicature at $alcutta! =adras and Bom6a and &here such&ills are made outside those territories inso%ar as the relate toimmo8a6le #ro#erties situate &ithin those territories. +here is norationale in insisting u#on the o6taining o% #ro6ate or letters o%

/

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

administration in res#ect o% &ills e0ecuted 6 @indus! Buddhists!"ikhs! Jainas and 7arsis in res#ect o% the #ro#ert situate outsidethose limits. "ince there is no uni%ormit in the a##lication o% section2)3 inso%ar as it relates to the =uslims and $hristians on the onehand and @indus! Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas and 7arsis on the other! the$ommission has resol8ed to recommend %or the re#eal o% section 2)3

altogether %rom the statute and remo8e thedisuni%ormitdiscrimination and attain uni%ormit. +here does nota##ear to 6e an earth reason to ignore the claim to eCualit o% themaor section o% the #eo#le o% India! the @indus etc. Article )5 o% the$onstitution o% India states that the "tate shall not discriminateagainst an citien on grounds onl o% religion! race! caste! se0! #laceo% 6irth or an o% them.

+he $ommission #laces on record the a6le assistance rendered 6 =r. Justice ".A. Eader! %ormer Judge! @igh $ourt o% =adras and

"enior Ad8ocate! "u#reme $ourt o% India! no& at $hennai! in #re#aring this Re#ort.

ith kind regards!Gours sincerel!

(AR. Lakshmanan

Dr. @.R. Bhard&a!Hnion =inister %or La& and Justice!o8ernment o% India!"hastri Bha&an!

Ne3 Del#i<!!***!

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 10

2. DI"H'IFR=I+G 20

3. R9$==9'DA+I' 28

-

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

1. INTRODUCTION

).) An article entitled ;T#e In$ian S%ccession /Amen$ment0 Act

9 of ** W#5 t#is $iscrimination a=ainst 1in$%s& 2%$$#ists&

Si8#s& +ainas an$ Parsis<! authored 6 @on:6le =r. Justice ".A.

Eader! %ormer Judge o% the =adras @igh $ourt! &as #u6lished at

#age 35 o% the Journal "ection o% +he La& eekl! =adras in 2**3

(ol.2. +he entire article is re#roduced hereunder,

+he Indian "uccession (Amendment Act 2**2 &hich

recei8ed the assent o% the 7resident on the 2/th =a 2**2 and

#u6lished in the aette o% India on 22.)).2**2 has amended

section 32 and section 2)3(2 o% the #arent Act &hich ran as

%ollo&s,

H32. De8olution o% such #ro#ert. +he #ro#ert o% an

intestate de8ol8es u#on the &i%e or hus6and! or u#on

those &ho are the kindred o% the deceased! in the order

and according to the rules hereina%ter contained in the

$ha#ter.

90#lanation. A &ido& is not entitled to the #ro8ision

here6 made %or her i%! 6 a 8alid contract made 6e%ore

her marriage! she has 6een e0cluded %rom her

distri6uti8e share o% her hus6and:s estate.<

)*

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

K+his section does not a##l to @indus! Buddhists! "ikhs!

Jainas and 7arsis. It a##lies to onl Indian $hristians.

"ection 2)3,

;2)3. Right as e0ecutor or legatee &hen esta6lished.

() 'o right as e0ecutor or legatee can 6e esta6lished in

an $ourt o% Justice! unless a $ourt o% com#etent

urisdiction in India has granted #ro6ate o% the &ill under

&hich the right is claimed! or has granted letters o%

administration &ith the &ill or &ith a co# o% an

authenticated co# o% the &ill anne0ed.

(2 +his "ection shall not a##l in the case o% &ills

made 6 =uhammadans! and shall onl a##l

(i in the case o% &ills made 6 an @indu! Buddhist!

"ikh or Jaina &here such &ills are o% classes

s#eci%ied in clauses (a and (6 o% section 5/! and

(ii in the case o% &ills made 6 an 7arsi ding a%ter

the commencement o% the Indian "uccession

(Amendment Act! )-12 ()1 o% )-12! &here such

&ills are made &ithin the local limits o% the

ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh

$ourts at $alcutta! =adras! and Bom6a! and

&here such &ills are made outside those limits! in

))

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

so %ar as the relate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate

&ithin those limits.<

2. +he "tatement o% 6ects and Reasons %or the

Amendment Act 21 o% 2**2 are as %ollo&s,

;+he Indian "uccession Act )-25 &as aimed at

consolidating the Indian la& relating to testamentar and

intestate succession. "ection 32 o% this Act recognies

the $hristian &ido& as one o% the heirs to succeed the

#ro#ert o% her deceased hus6and ding intestate.

@o&e8er! the 90#lanation to the said section #ro8ides

that the &ido& &ould not 6e entitled to succeed such

distri6uti8e share i% there is a 8alid contract made 6e%ore

her marriage to that e%%ect. +he Eerala omen:s

$ommission and some 'ono8ernmental rganiations

ha8e #ointed out that this #ro8ision o% the Act e0cluding

a $hristian &ido& %rom her distri6uti8e share on the

6asis o% the contract is discriminator and the ha8e

suggested that she should 6e entitled to succeed her

distri6uti8e share not&ithstanding an contract to the

contrar.

"ection 2)3 o% this Act reCuires that no #erson

claiming a right as e0ecutor or legatee o% a &ill can

esta6lish such right in an court o% ustice under the &ill

unless he has 6een granted a #ro6ate or Letters o%

)2

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

Administration &ith the &ill or a co# o% the

authenticated co# o% the &ill anne0ed! 6 a court o%

com#etent urisdiction. 'o such #ro6ate or Letters o%

Administration is reCuired %or a =ohammedan to

esta6lish rights under the &ill nor there is an

reCuirement in the case o% other communities on an All

India 6asis. +he La& $ommission o% India! the Eerala

omen:s $ommission! =em6ers o% 7arliament

6elonging to $hristian communit and 8arious other

indi8iduals and organiations ha8e #ointed out and

re#resented to the o8ernment that this #ro8ision is

discriminator and should not a##l to $hristians alone.

+he matter has 6een e0amined 6 the o8ernment

and it has 6een decided to

(a delete the 90#lanation to "ection 32 and

(6 make "ection 2)3 ina##lica6le to Indian

$hristians 6 amending the Indian "uccession Act!

)-25.

+he Bill seeks to achie8e the a6o8e o6ects.<

3. "ection 2 o% the Indian "uccession (Amendment Act

2**2 deletes the 90#lanation to section 32 o% the #arent Act

there6 relie8ing the $hristian &ido& o% the 6ar to succeed

distri6uti8e share o% her hus6and:s estate e8en i% there &as a

)3

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

8alid contract made to that e%%ect 6e%ore marriage. +his is

indeed a &elcome amendment &hich has done a&a &ith the

discrimination against $hristian &ido&s.

4. "ection 3 o% the Amendment Act 2**2 has inserted the

&ords ;or Indian $hristians< a%ter the &ord ;=uhammadans<

in "ection 2)3(2 o% the 7rinci#al Act! &hich no& reads thus,

;+his "ection shall not a##l in the case o% ills

made 6 =uhammadans or Indian $hristians and shall

onl a##l >

???

ii. ???..<

5. +he result is the #ro8isions o% "ection 2)3() &hich

necessitates the grant o% #ro6ate o% the ill or Letters o%

Administration &ith the ill or &ith a co# o% the

authenticated co# o% the ill anne0ed 6 a court o% com#etent

urisdiction in order to esta6lish the right as e0ecutor or legatee

is not no& a##lica6le to the ills made not onl 6

=ohammedans 6ut also 6 Indian $hristians. But the

a%oresaid #ro8ision continues to a##l

I. In the case o% ills made 6 an @indu! Buddhist!

"ikh or Jaina &here such ills are o% the classes

s#eci%ied in clauses (a and (6 o% "ection 5/! i.e.! ills

and $odicils made 6 an @indu! Buddhist! "ikh or Jaina

)4

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

on or a%ter the )st da o% "e#tem6er )/* &ithin the

+erritories &hich at the said date &ere su6ect to the

Lieutenant o8ernor o% Bengal or &ithin the local limits

o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh

$ourts o% Judicature at =adras and Bom6a and all such

ills and $odicils made outside those +erritories and

limits so %ar as relates to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate

&ithin those +erritories or limits

II. In the case o% ills made 6 an 7arsi ding a%ter the

commencement o% the Indian "uccession (Amendment

Act! )-12! &here such ills are made &ithin the local

limits o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the

@igh $ourts at $alcutta! =adras and Bom6a and &here

such ills are made outside those limits! inso%ar as the

relate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin those limits.

1. +he e0em#tion in res#ect o% ills made 6 =uslims

under the #arent Act &as due to the =uslim 7ersonal La&.

+he sti#ulation im#osed in section 2)3() o% the Act in res#ect

o% ills made 6 an Indian $hristian! @indu! Buddhist! "ikh

or Jaina &as the legac o% $olonial Rule &hich has 6een

e0tended to 7arsis in )-12. +he discrimination against the

ills e0ecuted 6 the Indian $hristians has no& 6een remo8ed

6 the #resent Amendment on an All India 6asis. In Eerala!

this discrimination against Indian $hristians has alread 6een

done a&a &ith 6 the Eerala Act ) o% )--/ &ith e%%ect %rom

)5

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

)4.3.)--/. +he discrimination in res#ect o% ills made 6

@indus! Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas or 7arsis continues in a

limited %orm! i.e.! &here the ill is made &ithin the +erritories

o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh $ourts o%

Judicature at $alcutta! =adras and Bom6a and &here such

ills are made outside those +erritories so %ar as the relate to

immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin those +erritories. +his

discrimination is lia6le to 6e struck do&n under Article )5 o%

the $onstitution &hich #rohi6its discrimination on grounds o%

religion! race! caste or #lace o% 6irth. ill the 7arliament look

into this anomal and re#eal "ection 2)3() and (2

altogetherM:

).2 n the a6o8e article! a note &as #u6lished 6 the La& eekl!

=adras! 2**3 (2 #age 5/ (J"! &hich is also re#roduced hereunder,

+he litigant #u6lic in our land! &h %or the matter o%

that! e8en our legal %raternit is greatl o6liged to =r. ".A.

Eader! %ormer Judge o% our @igh $ourt %or his #iece! ;The

Indian Succession (Amendment) Act 26 of 22 ! "hy this

discrimination against #indus$ %uddhists$ Si&hs$ 'ainas and

arsisM< &hich &e ha8e carried at #ages 35 J.". to 3/ J.". (in

7art 4 o% this olume in our Journal "ection.

e had oursel8es noticed that the 2**2 'o8em6er #art

o% AIR carried the te0t o% the Amending Act! Act 21 o% 2**2 at

#age )2* o% ournal #art.

)1

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

e &ere &ondering &hat to make o% this amendment

made // ears a%ter the enactment o% Indian "uccession Act!

)-25! assented to 6 the then o8ernor eneral in $ouncil on

3*th "e#tem6er )-25! itsel% a $onsolidating Act &hose

%orerunner &as the Act o% )15.

ur ina6ilit to get do&n to 6usiness &hich &e can onl

attri6ute to our lacking in %acilities has 6een e0#osed 6 the

oung gentleman that =r. Eader &ho is onl /1 ears oung is

6 his commitment to legal research. +hat he Cuoted %rom

+homas ra in his retirement s#eech %rom his seat on the

Bench o% our $ourt on 4.)).)- ma 6e onl one incident.

7arliament had #assed the Bill #laced 6e%ore it in the

ear 2**) itsel% and the Rashtra#ath ga8e his assent to the

same on 2/.5.2**2! 6ut the La& or Legislati8e de#artment o%

the Hnion $a6inet could get the enactment #rinted in the

%%icial aette o% India onl on 22.)).2**2.

=r. Eader has 6een a6le to locate the "tatement o%

6ects and Reasons %or the Amending BillAct. +he selecti8e

a##roach made 6 7arliament to go to the hel# o% onl those

&ho o#en their mouths and make a %ull throated noise is clearl

6rought out on a mere look at the 6ects and Reasons %or this

measure.

)/

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

=r. Eader:s conclusion that the #ro8isions o% the Indian

"uccession Act! )-25! as no& remain! are clearl

discriminator and reCuire to 6e struck do&n 6 the @igh $ourt

(s is the onl o68ious one.

.. .. .. .. ..

n 22.2.2**)! a Bench o% the "u#reme $ourt o% India

(Raendra Ba6u and Lahoti! JJ. deli8ered udgment in .7.($

'o.)3/ o% )--/ and connected cases. +he same is re#orted in

AIR 2**) "$ ))5) and 2**)4"$$325.

+he claim made 6 the #etitioners in the said case! in the

main! &as that ust as =uslims and 7arsis ha8e 6een e0em#ted

%rom the o#eration o% section 2)3! Indian (M $hristians o% this

countr should also eno the same e0ce#tion and that it should

6e so declared.

+hough the #raer came to 6e reected 6 the Bench! it is

%ound that the Indian 7arliament lost no time in conceding the

reCuest and o6liging a signi%icant section o% our countr:s

citiens! namel! $hristians.

hat is sauce %or the goose is (or at least! must 6eN

sauce %or the gander too.

+here does not a##ear to 6e an earth reason &h

7arliament or the concerned =inistr o% the Hnion $a6inet

)

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

came to ignore the claim to eCualit o% the maor section o% the

#eo#le o% India! the @indus and ena6le them to 6e %reed %rom

the shackles.

.. .. .. ..

I% in regard onl to #ro#erties in $hennai! =um6ai or

Eolkata or in the e8ent o% the testator ha8ing e0ecuted the

testament &hile &ithin these cities! is a #ro6ate made reCuisite

6 this #ro8ision lea8ing aside the entire countr does not this

#ro8ision a##ear an anachronismM

=ore so! &hen a distinct and not a small #ercentage o%

the #o#ulation &ill 6e a%%ected 6 this Rule.

@ere &e can also take note o% "ection 3 o% the Act o%

)-25 and "ection 332 o% its #redecessor Act )* o% )15 has

made #ro8ision %or the "tate o8ernment to e0em#t 6

noti%ication! the o#eration o%! among others! "ections 2)2! 2)3!

and 2)5 to 31-! the mem6ers o% an race etc. to &hom the "tate

o8ernment considers it im#ossi6le or ine0#edient to a##l

such #ro8ision. ne can e8en a##l the ma0im cessante

ratione legis cessat ipsa lex*+ (Broom $an:t &eN

e lea8e it to the =ega Association o% la&ers in our

"tate! the =adras @igh $ourt Ad8ocates Association and its

o%%ice 6earers to take u# the issue &ith the +.'. o8ernment to

)-

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

make a noti%ication under "ection 3 o% Act 3- o% )-25 and

relie8e a large section o% our #eo#le.:

2. DIS,NIFORMIT-

2.) A #erusal o% the a6o8e article and the note #u6lished 6 the

La& eekl! =adras &ould clearl demonstrate and re8eal the

discrimination against @indus! Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas and 7arsis in

the matter o% o6taining #ro6ate o% a &ill or letters o% administration

&ith res#ect to the &ills e0ecuted 6 @indus! Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas

and 7arsis &ithin the local limits o% the ordinar original ci8il

urisdiction o% the @igh $ourts at $alcutta! =adras and Bom6a and

&here such &ills are made outside those limits! in so %ar as the relate

to immo8a6le #ro#erties situate &ithin those limits! that the learned

author #leaded %or the remo8al.

2.2 @ardshi# is e0#erienced 6 litigants in o6taining #ro6ate or

letters o% administration #aing high dut. hile o6taining o%

#ro6ate or letters o% administration is not insisted u#on in res#ect o%

&ills e0ecuted 6 =uslims and $hristians an&here in India in

res#ect o% #ro#erties situated an&here in India and &ills e0ecuted 6

@indus! Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas and 7arsis outside the local limits o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh $ourts at $alcutta!

=adras and Bom6a in res#ect o% #ro#erties situated outside those

limits! there is no rationale in insisting u#on o6taining o% #ro6ate or

letters o% administration in res#ect o% &ills e0ecuted 6 @indus!

2*

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

Buddhists! "ikhs! Jainas and 7arsis &ithin the local limits o% the

ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh $ourts at $alcutta!

=adras and Bom6a! and &here such &ills are made outside those

limits inso%ar as the relate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin

those limits.

2.3 Article )5 o% the $onstitution reads as %ollo&s,

HArt) !() () +he "tate shall not discriminate against an

citien on grounds onl o% religion! race! caste! se0! #lace o%

6irth or an o% them.

(2 'o citien shall on grounds onl o% religion! race! caste!

se0! #lace o% 6irth or an o% them! 6e su6ect to an disa6ilit!

lia6ilit! restriction or condition &ith regard to

(a access to sho#s! #u6lic restaurants! hotels and #laces o%

#u6lic entertainment or

(6 the use o% &ells! tanks! 6athing ghats! roads and #laces o%

#u6lic resort maintained &holl or #artl out o% "tate

%unds or dedicated to the use o% the general #u6lic.

(3 'othing in this article shall #re8ent the "tate %rom

making an s#ecial #ro8ision %or &omen and children.

(4 'othing in this article or in clause (2 o% article 2- shall

#re8ent the "tate %rom making an s#ecial #ro8ision %or the

ad8ancement o% an sociall and educationall 6ack&ard

2)

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

classes o% citiens or %or the "cheduled $astes and the

"cheduled +ri6es.

(5 'othing in this article or in su6clause (g o% clause ()

o% article )- shall #re8ent the "tate %rom making an s#ecial

#ro8ision! 6 la&! %or the ad8ancement o% an sociall and

educationall 6ack&ard classes o% citiens or %or the "cheduled

$astes or the "cheduled +ri6es in so %ar as such s#ecial

#ro8isions relate to their admission to educational institutions

including #ri8ate educational institutions! &hether aided or

unaided 6 the "tate! other than the minorit educational

institutions re%erred to in clause () o% Article 3*.<

2.4 +he a6o8e Article #rohi6its discrimination on grounds o%

religion! race! caste! se0 or #lace o% 6irth.

2.5 +he constitutional 8alidit o% section )) o% the Indian

"uccession Act &as challenged 6e%ore the @igh $ourt o% Eerala in

reman v* ,nion of India! AIR )--- Eerala -3. It &as argued that

the said #ro8ision &as anomalous and anachronistic 6eing 8iolati8e

o% Articles )4! )5! 25 and 21 o% the $onstitution o% India and!

there%ore! the said section &as lia6le to 6e struck do&n as

unconstitutional. +he case &as decided 6 the Di8ision Bench

headed 6 @on:6le Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan (as he then &as.

+he @igh $ourt held,

22

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

; In the instant case$ Section --. of the Act regarding

religious be/uests of all testators$ vi0* of #indus$

1uhammadans$ arsis$ 'aina$ etc*$ are not subected to this

procedure and the be/uests by 3hristians alone is singled out*

Therefore$ we hold that Section --. of the Indian Succession

Act regarding religious and charitable be/uests is

discriminatory and violative of Articles -4 and -5 of the

3onstitution of India and it is necessary that all testators who

are similarly situated should be subected to the same

procedure* As the law stands today$ a 3hristian cannot ma&e a

be/uest for religious or charitable purposes without satisfying

the conditions and procedures prescribed by Section --. of the

Act* Such a burden$ procedural burden and substantive law

burden is not falling upon #indu$ 1uhammadan$ 'aina or

arsi testators*

we declare that Secton --. of the Indian Succession Act7

(a) discriminates against a 3hristian vis898vis non83hristian:

(b) discriminates against testamentary disposition by a

3hristian vis898vis non8testamentary disposition: (c)

discriminates against religious and charitable use of property

vis898vis all other uses including not so desirable purposes: (d)

discriminates against a 3hristian who has a nephew$ niece or

nearest relative vis898vis a 3hristian who has no relative at

all: and (e) discriminates against a 3hristian who dies within

-2 months of execution of the will$ of which he has no control*

"e$ therefore$ declare that Section --. of the Indian

Succession Act is anomalous and anachronistic being violative

23

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

of Articles -4$ -5$ 25 and 26 of the 3onstitution of India*

Section --. of the Indian Succession Act is$ therefore$ struc&

down as unconstitutional*;

2.1 +his matter &as taken to the "u#reme $ourt through a &rit

#etition and heard 6 its Bench com#rising @on:6le $hie% Justice o%

India .'. Ehare! @on:6le Justice ".B. "inha and @on:6le Dr. Justice

AR. Lakshmanan in 'ohn <allamattom v* ,nion of India! AIR 2**3

"$ 2-*2. +he "u#reme $ourt allo&ed the &rit #etition %or the

ela6orate reasons recorded in the udgments and also declared "ection

)) o% the Indian "uccession Act as unconstitutional 6eing 8iolati8e

o% Articles )4! )5! 25 and 21 o% the $onstitution o% India.

2./ @on:6le Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan deli8ered a se#arate

udgment agreeing &ith the other t&o Judges. In his concurring

udgment! he has ela6oratel dealt &ith discriminator treatment

meted out to the mem6ers o% the $hristian communit under the

Indian "uccession Act! )-25 6 &hich the are #racticall #re8ented

%rom 6eCueathing #ro#ert %or religious and charita6le #ur#oses. In

conclusion! he o6ser8ed,

;The Indian Succession Act though is claimed to be a

universal law of testamentary disposition$ but in effect$ crucial

sections apply only to 3hristians* There is no acceptable

answer from the other side as to why S* --. of the Act is made

applicable to 3hristians alone and not to others*

24

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

The Indian Succession Act came into effect on =th

September$ ->25* As per S* 4$ art II of the Act shall not apply

if the deceased was a #indu$ 1uhammadan$ %uddhist$ Si&h or

'aina* Section 2 of art III of the Act is not applicable to any

marriage contracted before the first day of 'anuary$ -.66: and

is not applicable and is deemed never to have applied to any

marriage$ one or both of the parties to which professed at the

time of marriage the #indu$ 1uhammadan$ %uddhist$ Si&h or

'ain religion* As per S* 2= of art I< of the Act$ that part shall

not apply to any "ill made or intestacy occurring before the

first day of 'anuary$ -.66 or to intestate or testamentary

succession to the property of any #indu$ 1uhammadan$

%uddhist$ Si&h$ 'ain or arsi* ?i&ewise$ as per S* 2> of art <

of the Act$ that shall not apply to any intestacy occurring

before the first day of 'anuary$ -.66 or to the property of any

#indu$ 1uhammadan$ %uddhist$ Si&h or 'aina* %y Act 5- of

->>-$ arsis were also excluded from the application of S* --.

of the Act* Thus$ it is seen that the procedure prescribed has

been made applicable to 3hristians alone* There is also no

acceptable answer from the respondent as to why it regulates

only religious and charitable be/uests and that too$ be/uests

of 3hristians alone* The whole case$ in my view$ is based upon

undue$ harsh and special burden on 3hristian testators alone*

A substantive restriction is imposed based on uncertain events

over which the testator has no control* I$ therefore$ have no

hesitation to hold that S* --. of the Act regarding religious

and charitable be/uests of all testators who are similar should

25

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

be subected to the same procedure* As the law stands today$ a

3hristian cannot ma&e a be/uest for religious or charitable

purposes without satisfying the conditions and procedures

prescribed by S* --. of the Act* Such a burden$ procedural

burden and substantive law burden is not falling upon #indu$

1uhammadan$ 'ain or arsi testators*

The very same /uestion was raised before the @erala

#igh 3ourt*

It is pertinent to notice that the udgment of the @erala

#igh 3ourt was not appealed against by the respondent

herein$ namely$ the ,nion of India* ven after the udgment of

the @erala #igh 3ourt dated -6*-*->>.$ the arliament did

not remove the discrimination* ,nder such circumstances$ this

3ourt$ in my opinion$ in exercise of its urisdiction and to

remedy violation of fundamental rights$ are bound to declare

the impugned provision as invalid and being violative of Arts*

-4$ -5$ 25 and 26 of the 3onstitution* Bor the foregoing

reasons$ I am respectfully in agreement with 1y ?ord #onCble

the 3hief 'ustice of India that S* --. of the Act is

unconstitutional and is liable to be struc& down as

unconstitutional*

In the result$ the writ petition is allowed .<

21

LatestLaws.com



LatestLaws.com

2. "u6section (2 o% section 2)3 o% the Indian "uccession Act

&as amended 6 the Indian "uccession (Amendment Act! 2**2

introducing the &ords ;or Indian $hristians< a%ter the &ord

;=uhammadans<. +he result is that the #ro8ision o% su6section ()

o% section 2)3 &hich necessitates grant o% #ro6ate o% the &ill or

letters o% administration &ith the &ill or &ith a co# o% an

authenticated co# o% the &ill anne0ed! 6 a $ourt o% com#etent

urisdiction in order to esta6lish the right as e0ecutor or legatee is

no& not a##lica6le to the &ills made not onl 6 =uhammadans 6ut

also 6 Indian $hristians. But this #ro8ision continues to a##l

() in the case o% &ills made 6 an @indu! Buddhist! "ikh

or Jaina &here such &ills are o% the classes s#eci%ied in

clauses (a and (6 o% section 5/! that is! &ills and

codicils made 6 an @indu! Buddhist! "ikh or Jaina on

or a%ter the )st da o% "e#tem6er! )/*! &ithin the

territories &hich on the said date &ere su6ect to the

Lieutenant o8ernor o% Bengal or &ithin the local limits

o% the ordinar original ci8il urisdiction o% the @igh

$ourts o% =adras and Bom6a and all such &ills and

codicils made outside those territories and limits so %ar as

the relate to immo8a6le #ro#ert situate &ithin those

territories or limits and

(2 in the case o% &ills made 6 7arsis ding a%ter the

commencement o% the Indian "uccession (Amendment

Act! )-12! &here such &ills are made &ithin the local

2/

LatestLaws.com



Documents

Law Commission Report No. 209- Proposal for Omission of Section 213 From the Indian Succession Act, 1925