John Vallamattom v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2003) — section 118 of the Succession Act struck down

Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 forbade a man having a nephew, niece or nearer relative from bequeathing property to religious or charitable uses except by a will executed at least twelve months before his death and deposited within six months of execution. A proviso exempted Parsis. The section is still printed in the Act, so a student who recites it without the case gets the law wrong.

The first petitioner was an Indian Christian priest of the Roman Catholic denomination; the second was also a member of the Christian community. By a petition under Article 32, Writ Petition (Civil) 242 of 1997, they challenged the constitutionality of s. 118. Their grievance was the discriminatory treatment of the Christian community under the Act, by which they were practically prevented from bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes. The judgment was delivered on 21 July 2003 by Khare C.J.I.

1. Is s. 118 violative of Article 14, being an unreasonable and discriminatory restriction on Christians alone?
2. Do Articles 25 and 26 protect, or alternatively defeat, the provision?

The Court allowed the petition. On Article 14, it observed that "Section 118 of the Act imposes a restriction only on the Indian Christians" — the restriction applies to no other community, the Parsis being expressly exempted — and concluded that "Section 118 of the Act being unreasonable is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution". The Court added that a provision not unconstitutional when enacted may be rendered so by facts emerging afterwards, and that constitutionality is judged in the light of the interpretive changes worked by the passage of time.

On religious freedom the Court held that a disposition towards charitable or religious purposes is not an integral part of the Christian religion: "If a person professing Christian religion does not show any inclination of disposition towards charitable or religious purposes, he does not cease to be a Christian." Article 25 protects only rituals and ceremonies that are integral to the religion, so it had no application; nor, for the same reasons, did Article 26.

The operative order: "this writ petition is allowed and Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act is declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The Court closed with an observation frequently quoted in uniform-civil-code questions: "It is a matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies." It also noted that marriage, succession and the like, being matters of a secular character, cannot be brought within the guarantee of Articles 25 and 26.

1. A restriction on testamentary disposition imposed on one religious community alone, with no reasonable basis, is arbitrary and discriminatory and offends Article 14.
2. Charitable or religious bequeathing is not an integral part of the Christian religion, so Articles 25 and 26 do not shield the provision.
3. A statute valid when enacted may become unconstitutional through changed circumstances.