CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 242 of 1997 PETITIONER: John Vallamattom and Anr. RESPONDENT: Vs. Union of India DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/07/2003 BENCH: S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J :
While agreeing with the opinion of My Lord, the Chief Justice of India, I would like to add only a few words.
Message of charity and compassion is to be found in all religions without any exception. Only because charity and compassion are preached in every religion, the same by itself would not be a part of the 'religious practice' within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Religion of Christianity encouraging the Christians to practise charities to attain spiritual salvation is of not much relevance for this purpose. Such preachings are also found in Bhagavat Geeta and Upanishad. In Collins English Dictionary, 'Christian' is defined as a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.
Similarly, we may notice that this Court in Lily Thomas and Others vs. Union of India and Others [(2000) 6 SCC 224] in relation to the religion of Islam observed thus :
"The word "Islam" means "peace and submission". In its religious connotation it is understood as "submission to the will of God"; according to Fyzee (outlines of Mohammedan Law, 2nd Edn.), in its secular sense, the establishment of peace. The word "Muslim" in Arabic is the active principle of Islam, which means acceptance of faith, the noun of which is Islam."
The petitioners have quoted a passage purported to be from Chapter 19 of Gospel according to Luke. The Holy Bible published by Gideons does not contain the said passage.
Assuming that the said preachings have found place in the Holy Bible, the same ex facie would go to show that what was being preached is renouncement.
Even if the said passage is taken to be correct, the same appears to be a person who had followed namely : Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; respect your father and your mother. That was an advice to a person. Renouncement of world by a person following any religion is necessarily not the essential practice of the religion which is meant for commonness. Gandhiji also said renouncement and enjoy. Such preachings for renouncement from the world have no co- relation with the tenets of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The impugned provision was enacted to prevent persons from making ill-considered death bequest under religious influence. The object behind the said legislation was, therefore, to protect a section of illiterate or semi- literate persons who used to blindly follow the preachers of the religion. Such a purpose has lost all significance with the passage of time and, therefore, has to be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 242 of 1997 PETITIONER: John Vallamattom and Anr. RESPONDENT: Vs. Union of India DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/07/2003 BENCH: S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J :
While agreeing with the opinion of My Lord, the Chief Justice of India, I would like to add only a few words.
Message of charity and compassion is to be found in all religions without any exception. Only because charity and compassion are preached in every religion, the same by itself would not be a part of the 'religious practice' within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Religion of Christianity encouraging the Christians to practise charities to attain spiritual salvation is of not much relevance for this purpose. Such preachings are also found in Bhagavat Geeta and Upanishad. In Collins English Dictionary, 'Christian' is defined as a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.
Similarly, we may notice that this Court in Lily Thomas and Others vs. Union of India and Others [(2000) 6 SCC 224] in relation to the religion of Islam observed thus :
"The word "Islam" means "peace and submission". In its religious connotation it is understood as "submission to the will of God"; according to Fyzee (outlines of Mohammedan Law, 2nd Edn.), in its secular sense, the establishment of peace. The word "Muslim" in Arabic is the active principle of Islam, which means acceptance of faith, the noun of which is Islam."
The petitioners have quoted a passage purported to be from Chapter 19 of Gospel according to Luke. The Holy Bible published by Gideons does not contain the said passage.
Assuming that the said preachings have found place in the Holy Bible, the same ex facie would go to show that what was being preached is renouncement.
Even if the said passage is taken to be correct, the same appears to be a person who had followed namely : Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; respect your father and your mother. That was an advice to a person. Renouncement of world by a person following any religion is necessarily not the essential practice of the religion which is meant for commonness. Gandhiji also said renouncement and enjoy. Such preachings for renouncement from the world have no co- relation with the tenets of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The impugned provision was enacted to prevent persons from making ill-considered death bequest under religious influence. The object behind the said legislation was, therefore, to protect a section of illiterate or semi- literate persons who used to blindly follow the preachers of the religion. Such a purpose has lost all significance with the passage of time and, therefore, has to be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Short Summary
The case of John Vallamattom v. Union of India challenged the constitutional validity of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted testamentary disposition of property to religious or charitable purposes by individuals having relatives. The Supreme Court declared Section 118 unconstitutional, holding it violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before the law).
Facts
The petitioner, John Vallamattom, challenged Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This section placed restrictions on individuals with relatives bequeathing property to religious or charitable organizations. The petitioner argued that the provision was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights.
Issues
Whether Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner argued that Section 118 was discriminatory because it restricted the testamentary freedom of individuals with relatives, while those without relatives faced no such restrictions. This created an arbitrary distinction and violated the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.
Respondent's Arguments
The Union of India argued that Section 118 was enacted to protect illiterate or semi-literate individuals from being unduly influenced into making deathbed bequests to religious or charitable organizations, thereby depriving their families. The intention was to prevent exploitation under religious influence.
Court's Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the original intent of Section 118, which was to protect vulnerable individuals from undue religious influence. However, the Court reasoned that the provision had become outdated and its purpose had lost significance over time. The Court found the restriction imposed by Section 118 to be arbitrary and discriminatory, as it treated individuals with relatives differently from those without, without a reasonable basis for such distinction. Therefore, it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court declared Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, ultra vires (beyond the powers) and unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petition was allowed, and the restriction on testamentary disposition to religious or charitable purposes was removed.
Get instant answers specific to this case
