- News>
- India
SC favours Common Civil Code
New Delhi, July 23: Observing that a Common Civil Code would help national integration, the Supreme Court has given a major relief to the Christian community by striking down as unconstitutional a provision of Indian Succession Act putting restrictions on them from donating their property for religious and charitable purpose by a will.
New Delhi, July 23: Observing that a Common Civil Code would help national integration, the Supreme Court has given a major relief to the Christian community by striking down as unconstitutional a provision of Indian Succession Act putting restrictions on them from donating their property for religious and charitable purpose by a will.
This ruling was given by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice V N Khare, Justice S B Sinha and Justice AR Lakshmanan while allowing a writ petition filed by a Christian priest, John Vallamattom, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 118 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, imposing the restriction only on Christians and not on others.
Noticing too much of stress being given these days to link the personal laws to religion, the bench said that while Article 25 of the Constitution conferred right to practice and profess religion, Article 44 divested religion from social relations and personal law.
Chief Justice Khare, writing the leading judgement, said Article 44 provided that state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout India.
"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," said Justice Khare, with whom Justice Sinha and Justice Lakshmanan concurred through their separate judgements.
It is Justice Khare who discussed the need for the Common Civil Code and the topic was not discussed by the other judges of the bench in their separate judgements.
Justice Sinha and Justice Lakshmanan agreed with the Chief Justice in declaring Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act as unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to equality of the Christians guaranteed to all citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 118 provided that a person having nephew or niece or any nearer relative cannot donate by will his property for religious or charitable use unless (i) the will is executed not less than 12 months before the death of testator; (ii) it is deposited within six months from its execution in some place provided by law for safe custody thereof; and (iii) it remains in such deposit till death of the person who made the will. Saying that the period of 12 months could not have been linked to the object of performing the philanthropic act, the apex court said "as the charitable purposes are philanthropic and since a person's freedom to dispose off property for such purposes has nothing to do with religious influence, Section 118 treating bequests for both religious and charitable purposes is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Sinha said that Section 118 was enacted to prevent persons from making ill-considered death bequests under religious influence and added that "the purpose of the section has lost all significance with the passage of time."
Justice Lakshmanan said despite the Kerala High Court declaring the provision unconstitutional as far back as 1998, Parliament had not removed the provision and hence the apex court must declare the same as unconstitutional.
Bureau Report
This ruling was given by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice V N Khare, Justice S B Sinha and Justice AR Lakshmanan while allowing a writ petition filed by a Christian priest, John Vallamattom, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 118 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, imposing the restriction only on Christians and not on others.
Noticing too much of stress being given these days to link the personal laws to religion, the bench said that while Article 25 of the Constitution conferred right to practice and profess religion, Article 44 divested religion from social relations and personal law.
Chief Justice Khare, writing the leading judgement, said Article 44 provided that state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout India.
"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," said Justice Khare, with whom Justice Sinha and Justice Lakshmanan concurred through their separate judgements.
It is Justice Khare who discussed the need for the Common Civil Code and the topic was not discussed by the other judges of the bench in their separate judgements.
Justice Sinha and Justice Lakshmanan agreed with the Chief Justice in declaring Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act as unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to equality of the Christians guaranteed to all citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 118 provided that a person having nephew or niece or any nearer relative cannot donate by will his property for religious or charitable use unless (i) the will is executed not less than 12 months before the death of testator; (ii) it is deposited within six months from its execution in some place provided by law for safe custody thereof; and (iii) it remains in such deposit till death of the person who made the will. Saying that the period of 12 months could not have been linked to the object of performing the philanthropic act, the apex court said "as the charitable purposes are philanthropic and since a person's freedom to dispose off property for such purposes has nothing to do with religious influence, Section 118 treating bequests for both religious and charitable purposes is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Sinha said that Section 118 was enacted to prevent persons from making ill-considered death bequests under religious influence and added that "the purpose of the section has lost all significance with the passage of time."
Justice Lakshmanan said despite the Kerala High Court declaring the provision unconstitutional as far back as 1998, Parliament had not removed the provision and hence the apex court must declare the same as unconstitutional.
Bureau Report