This article was written by Pruthvi Ramkanta Hegde. This article explains the facts, issues, observations and judgement in the case of John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003). This judgement comments on the validity of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. An overview of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act and how it violates the fundamental rights of the Constitution of India is also covered by the author. 

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

The concept of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been highly discussed and debated in India. UCC seeks to establish a single set of laws that apply to all citizens, regardless of their religion. Thereby it replaces the various personal laws derived from religious scriptures and customs. The main aim of UCC is to promote equality and unity. 

Download Now

One of the critical aspects that a UCC would address is the discriminatory provisions in personal laws, such as those found in the Indian Succession Act of 1925. The landmark case of John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003) brought to light the unequal treatment of the Christian community under Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This Section imposes certain restrictions on Christians in bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes, and the Section does not apply to other religious communities. 

Details of the case

Name of the case 

John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003)

Type of the case

Writ Petition (Civil) of 242

Date of judgement

21 July 2003

Name of the Court 

Honourable Supreme Court of India

Equivalent citations

Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 1997

Bench

The then Honourable Chief Justice, V.N. Khare; 

The Honourable Justice, S.B. Sinha; and

The Honourable Justice, A. R. Lakshmanan

Parties to the case

Petitioner  

John Vallamattom and Others

Respondent 

Union of India

Related statutes and provisions

Article 14, Article 15, Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Facts of John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003)

  • A Christian priest named John Vallamattom filed this writ petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of India.
  • Through this writ petition, he challenged Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925.
  • The petitioner contended that this Section discriminates against Christians who want to leave their property for religious and charitable purposes.
  • Section 118 originated from the British Mortmain statute and was included in the Indian Succession Act.

Issues raised

  • Whether Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
  • Whether Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, resulted in discriminatory treatment of Christians compared to followers of other religions?

Petitioner’s contentions 

  • The petitioner contended before the honourable Supreme Court that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was discriminatory and unconstitutional. His contentions mainly pointed to the unequal treatment of Christians in comparison to other religious communities in India, especially concerning the bequeathal of property for religious and charitable purposes.
  • The petitioner asserted that Section 118 imposed unfair restrictions solely on Christians. This provision stipulated that Christians could not bequeath property for religious or charitable uses unless the will was executed at least twelve months before the testator’s death and deposited in a legal repository within six months of its execution. 
  • It was further contended by petitioner that such strict conditions were not imposed on Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains. Thereby, this was an unreasonable and unjust classification that was solely based on religion. 
  • Another contention raised was that this discrimination is not reasonable as it violates the fundamental rights of the Constitution of India, especially Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 
  • According to the petitioner, the provision directly contravened Article 14. It is one of the fundamental articles confirmed under the Indian Constitution. Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the law. 
  • The petitioner contended that Section 118 failed to treat all citizens equally, as it singled out Christians for differential treatment. 
  • Further, it was pointed out that Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. As per Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, imposing special restrictions only on Christians would violate Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion. 
  • The petitioner contended that Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. Charitable giving was an integral part of Christian religious practice, and these restrictions hindered this religious expression. 
  • It was asserted that the impugned section applies only to Christians, except in Goa, and imposes strict conditions. Further, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains are not subjected to these restrictions.
  • Further, Article 26 provides the freedom to manage religious affairs. The petitioner contended that the Section’s restrictions impeded Christians from freely managing their religious and charitable endowments.
  • Section 118 created an unfair and discriminatory burden on Christian testators who had nieces, nephews, or near relatives. These testators had to comply with Section 118 while making their wills, unlike those without such relatives. 
  • The petitioner emphasised that these restrictions had no substantial relation to the objective of ensuring valid and genuine charitable bequests.

Observations of the Supreme Court

While deciding this case, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that when it comes to bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes as per Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, there is no justification for retaining the impugned provision in the statute book. It is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. According to this provision, a Christian with a nephew, niece, or closer relative cannot bequeath property for religious or charitable purposes unless:

  • The will is executed at least 12 months before the testator’s death.
  • The will is deposited within six months of execution in a legally designated place.
  • The will remains in deposit until the testator’s death.

This strict procedure does not apply to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains, as per Section 58 of the Act. Since no exemptions are granted to Christians under Section 3, they must create a new will every 12 months if the testator does not pass away within the year.

The Court further observed and compared the same restriction with other religions. Accordingly,  Muslims, on the other hand, face no such restrictions when bequeathing property for religious or charitable purposes. A Muslim can validly bequeath up to one-third of their net assets if the heirs exist. The only requirements are that the legator must be of sound mind and not a minor. If the legatee causes the legator’s death, the will becomes void. Under Muslim law, a will can be made in favour of an individual, institution, non-Muslim, minor, or insane person, and any property can be bequeathed.

For Hindus, founding a temple or charitable institution is seen as a religious duty and an aspect of Dharma.

Further, the court referred to the mortmain statutes, which are the basis for originating this provision, Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, the legal basis for Section 118 no longer exists because it was repealed by the Charities Act of 1960.

The Court further observed that it also violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect religious freedoms. For Christians, giving property for religious and charitable purposes is considered a fundamental aspect of their faith. The same is encouraged by the Bible. When a fundamental right, like the freedom of religion, is claimed to be violated, the Court must examine whether the act in question aims to protect order, morality, and health. Additionally, it aligns with other constitutional provisions. It is also authorised by law to regulate associated economic, financial, political, or secular activities, or to provide for social welfare and reform. The Court is obliged to conduct this examination.

While deciding this case, the Court observed the case of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983). The Court emphasised several key points regarding Article 14 of the Constitution and its implications on legislation: 

The fundamental principle of Article 14 of the Constitution is that it prohibits laws that treat different groups unfairly. But it allows for laws that classify people or things based on reasonable distinctions. For such a classification to be valid, it must meet two tests:

  • Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be based on characteristics or conditions that distinguish the included group from those excluded from it.
  • Rational Nexus: This differentia must have a rational connection to the objective of the law. The Honourable Supreme Court first addressed this doctrine in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. Union of India (1950). In subsequent rulings, the Court has underscored that differentiation is not inherently discriminatory when there is a logical link between the classification and its purpose.

The Court also noted in the above judgement that society is inherently unequal by nature. Therefore, a welfare state must take both executive and legislative actions to help those who are less privileged. 

The Court also referred to the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the Preman vs. Union of India (1998) case and discussed several points regarding Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925:

  • It discriminates against Christians compared to non-Christians.
  • It discriminates against testamentary dispositions through wills by Christians compared to non-testamentary dispositions.
  • It discriminates against the religious and charitable use of property compared to other uses, including less desirable purposes.
  • It discriminates against Christians who have relatives like nephews, nieces, or nearest relatives compared to those who do not have such relatives.
  • It discriminates against Christians who die within 12 months of making a will, which they have no control over.

The Kerala High Court, having found these discriminatory aspects, declared Section 118 unconstitutional under Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion), 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion), and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution. 

Legal aspects 

Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925

Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, states the restrictions on bequests for religious or charitable purposes. Accordingly, it includes:

A person with a nephew, niece, or closer relative cannot leave property for religious or charitable purposes in their will unless:

  • The will is made at least 12 months before the death.
  • The will is deposited within six months of its creation in a legally designated place for storing living persons’ wills.

Exceptions:

This rule does not apply to Parsis.

Examples:

If a person with a nephew makes a will (not following the above rules) to:

  • Help poor people
  • Support sick soldiers
  • Build or maintain a hospital
  • Educate orphans
  • Support scholars
  • Build or maintain a school
  • Build or repair a bridge
  • Build roads
  • Build or repair a church
  • Support ministers of religion
  • Create or support a public garden

All these bequests will be invalid.

Judgement in John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003)

In its judgement, the honourable Supreme Court held that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, discriminates against Christians in matters of testamentary disposition for religious and charitable purposes. The Court further held that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act violates Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law. The Court found that Section 118 of the Act unfairly treated Christians differently by imposing strict rules on how they could leave property for religious or charitable purposes. 

The rules, like requiring the will to be made a year before death and deposited, were not applied to other religious groups. This unequal treatment based on religion led the Court to declare Section 118 unconstitutional under Article 14. The Section imposed unfair conditions on Christian testators. Such as the requirement for a will to be executed at least 12 months before death and deposited within six months. It was further held that since these conditions were not imposed on other religious communities, they created discrimination against Christians. 

Upon examining both Indian and international legal precedents, the then Honourable Chief Justice V.N. Khare determined that imposing restrictions on bequests for charitable purposes, which serve the public good, is unjustified and constitutes discrimination. The Chief Justice’s examination of Indian and international laws led to the conclusion that the restrictions were unjustified, emphasising the philanthropic nature of charitable purposes. Charitable purposes, like helping the poor, education, healthcare, and public welfare, are philanthropic and not solely tied to religion. Therefore, treating bequests for both religious and charitable purposes differently under Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was seen as unfair and against Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law.

The Court also held that Article 15 of the Constitution protects the rights of individuals against discrimination based on religion, rather than protecting groups or communities as a whole. It focuses on ensuring equality for individuals, irrespective of their religious affiliation. Ultimately, the Chief Justice, along with the unanimous decision of the Court, allowed the petition and declared Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, unconstitutional because it violated Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against testamentary dispositions for charitable purposes.

As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition. The Court also declared Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925 unconstitutional.

Conclusion

This case highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India. Accordingly, UCC aims to replace the different personal laws of various religions with a single set of rules for all citizens. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution encourages the government to work towards creating and implementing a UCC to ensure equal treatment for everyone. However, UCC is not directly mentioned in this Article.

For example, Goa has a uniform civil code for all its residents, regardless of religion, since it continued using the Portuguese Civil Code after its liberation in 1961. Similarly, in 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state in India after independence to implement a UCC.

By introducing the Uniform Civil Code, India can ensure that laws are fair and equal for all citizens, regardless of their religious background. This case stipulates how different laws for different communities can lead to discrimination and the violation of fundamental rights. 

The Court decided that the rules under Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted how property could be left for charitable purposes, were not fair. After this decision, people now have more freedom to decide how they want to leave their property for charitable causes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a proposed law in India that aims to replace the personal laws of different religions with one common set of rules that applies to all citizens. This means that instead of having different laws for various religious communities, there would be one uniform law for everyone.

What changes does this ruling bring for Christians in India?

After Section 118 was declared unconstitutional, Christians in India no longer faced the stringent restrictions previously imposed on their ability to bequeath property for religious and charitable purposes. This helps them have the same rights as members of other religious communities in matters of testamentary dispositions.

What is a testamentary disposition and what can be included in it?

A testamentary disposition refers to the allocation of an individual’s property or assets as specified in their will, which takes effect upon their death. This includes, but is not limited to, real estate, personal belongings, financial assets, digital assets, and intellectual property.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here