Supreme Court Declares Section 118 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 Unconstitutional for Discriminating Against Christians in Testamentary Dispositions

Landmark Judgment Strikes Down Arbitrary Restrictions on Christian Bequests for Religious and Charitable Purposes, Upholding Equality and Religious Freedom under Constitution

In a significant verdict delivered on July 21, 2003, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, holding it unconstitutional for violating the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha, and Justice Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan in the writ petition filed by John Vallamattom and another against the Union of India.

Section 118 imposed stringent restrictions on Indian Christians who wished to bequeath property for religious or charitable purposes. The provision mandated that if a testator had a nephew, niece, or any nearer relative, the will making such a bequest must be executed not less than twelve months before death and deposited within six months from execution in a legally recognized place for safe custody. Failure to meet these conditions rendered the bequest void. Notably, these restrictions applied only to Christians and not to other religious communities such as Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, or Parsis.

The petitioners contended that Section 118 was discriminatory on multiple grounds: it singled out Christians for special restrictions, discriminated between testamentary and non-testamentary dispositions, and arbitrarily differentiated between religious/charitable bequests and other types of bequests, some of which could be illegal or immoral. They further argued that the provision violated Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution, impinging on the freedom to profess and practice religion and equality before law.

Tracing the historical background, the Court noted that Section 118 originated from the British Mortmain and Charitable Uses Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries, which were designed to prevent ill-considered death-bed gifts under religious influence. However, these British statutes were repealed by the Charities Act, 1960, reflecting changing societal values and legal standards. The Court observed that while India inherited the Indian Succession Act in 1925, the retention of Section 118 without amendment was unjustified in the changed constitutional and social landscape.

The Court held that the classification created by Section 118 was neither reasonable nor based on intelligible differentia. The arbitrary distinction between Christians and others, and between religious/charitable and other bequests, lacked any rational nexus to the statute's objective of preventing undue influence. The requirement of survival of the testator for twelve months after execution of the will was found to be arbitrary and irrelevant to the purpose of a will.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that charitable purposes-such as relief to the poor, education, medical aid, and public utility-are philanthropic and unrelated to religious influence and thus should not be restricted. It further held that the provision discriminated within the Christian community itself, as a testator with a nephew or niece was restricted while one without such relatives was not.

Addressing the fundamental rights issues, the Court ruled that Section 118 violated Article 14’s guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws. While Articles 15, 25, and 26 were considered, the Court clarified that the freedom to practice religion does not extend to testamentary dispositions, which are secular in nature. However, the impugned provision was still struck down as discriminatory and arbitrary.

The judgment also noted India’s international commitments under the Declaration on the Right to Development and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirm the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including charitable acts as expressions thereof.

The Court lamented the non-implementation of Article 44 of the Constitution, which calls for a Uniform Civil Code, stating that such a code would eliminate religious-based personal law contradictions, including those evident in succession laws.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and declared Section 118 unconstitutional and void. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The ruling marks a pivotal step towards eliminating discriminatory legal provisions against Christians and upholding the constitutional ethos of equality and religious freedom in matters of testamentary succession.

Statutory provisions:- Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 118, Section 3, Section 28, Section 59; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 44; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 18; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92

John Vallanmattom v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 63371