Case Brief: John Vallotam v UOI

CASE NAME	John Vallotam v UOI
CITATION	Writ Petition (Civil) 242 of 1997
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH	Chief Justice of India V.N. Khare
DATE OF DECISION	21st July 2003

BREIF OF FACTS

Along with another Christian petitioner, the petitioner was a Roman Catholic priest and an Indian citizen. The petitioners filed this petition on the grounds that they were prohibited from passing on their inheritance for charitable and religious reasons under the Indian Succession Act of 1925. In this petition, the petitioners argued that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution rendered Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 unconstitutional.

The petitioners argued that Section 118 was an unjustifiable and autocratic restriction on their ability to donate their private property for charitable or religious purposes out of their own free will. The section stated that any Christian having a niece, nephew, or other close relative is prohibited from donating or giving their private property for charitable or religious purposes unless a specific structural procedure is followed.

ISSUES

The question at hand in this case is whether Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is constitutionally permissible in India. 

ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney contended that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution because it contains discriminatory language that targets Christians, prohibits them from leaving a will that includes a Christian’s property, forbids them from using it for religious or charitable purposes. When a Christian who has a close relative passes away within a year of carrying out a will over which he has no control, he is pitted against another Christian. In addition, the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney contended that Section 118 of the Act infringes upon an Indian citizen’s right to be free to designate individuals as the beneficiaries of his will and the intent behind transferring private property. 

 The respondent’s knowledgeable attorney contended that this Act was put into effect earlier than the Indian Constitution and is still in effect today. Similarly, it was argued, the Indian Parliament was unaffected by developments and replacements of legislation made on their behalf by England or any other foreign country. The learned advisors further argued that Indian Christians constitute a distinct and unique segment of society that should not be placed in the same category as Muslims and Hindus in India for the purposes of religious and philanthropic inheritance. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that since marriage and succession are secular matters, they are not covered by the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom. 

JUDGEMENT

The Chief Justice of India examined the history of the Act in question in the petition filed by the petitioner, noting that it was an English legislative development from the 18th century that had been long since repealed. According to him, the Indian Constitution expressly declares any legislation that predates it to be void and incompatible with its current provisions. However, this does not mean that the legislation cannot be applied unless it is amended. 

The judge brought up Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law in India’s borders. Even so, a statute’s restriction can be upheld if it applies to a person who is the subject of a distinct and separate section, and if this differentiation is justified by reference to comprehensible differentia that serve the intended purpose. According to the Judge, the purpose of Section 118’s restrictions is to stop people from passing down private property in an impolite or careless manner while under the influence of religion. These restrictions, however, will have a significant impact on those who wish to dispose of their property in a way that will continue to have an impact long after they pass away.

The concept of property ownership includes the freedom to bequeath property according to one’s own wishes. This right is granted to everyone by the Indian Succession Act, regardless of their age, religion, caste, or creed. The Judge made it clear that only Indian Christians are subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 118. After reviewing Indian and international law, the judge concluded that there is no reason to prevent someone from distributing their personal property in a testamentary manner for charitable purposes that offer various forms of relief and serve the public good. 

The Judge held that it makes no sense to restrict passing down private property for religious or charitable reasons, and that doing so would undoubtedly violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, since charity is philanthropic and does not amount to religious influence. The Judge went on to say that since the right granted by Article 15 is individual rather than collective, it has no bearing on the petition at hand. As a result, the judge declared that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling.