Supreme Court Declares Provision Ultra Vires Article 14 Due to Loss of Significance Over Time. The court found that charity and compassion do not constitute essential religious practices under Article 25, leading to the provision's unconstitutionality.

  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed by John Vallamattom and another against the Union of India, challenging the constitutionality of a provision related to religious practices. The court considered the essence of charity and compassion across religions, noting that while these values are universally preached, they do not constitute essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners referenced a passage from the Gospel according to Luke, which the court found was not present in the Holy Bible published by Gideons. The court reasoned that even if the passage were accurate, it merely advised moral conduct rather than defining essential religious practices. The court further discussed the historical context of the impugned provision, which aimed to protect illiterate individuals from making ill-considered death bequests under religious influence. However, it concluded that the purpose of the provision had lost significance over time, leading to its declaration as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that renouncement, as preached in various religions, does not correlate with the essential tenets of Article 25, and thus the provision was deemed unconstitutional.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Religious Practice - Definition and Scope - Article 25, Constitution of India - The court examined whether charity and compassion, as preached in religions, constitute essential religious practices under Article 25. It held that such preachings do not qualify as religious practices and that renouncement is not essential to the religion, thus declaring the provision ultra vires Article 14 due to its outdated purpose (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned provision is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court declared the impugned provision ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that its purpose has lost significance over time.

Law Points

  • Article 25
  • Article 14
  • religious practice
  • charity
  • compassion
  • ultra vires
  • ill-considered death bequest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2003 LawText (SC) (07) 45

Writ Petition (civil) 242 of 1997

2003-07-21

S.B. Sinha

John Vallamattom and Anr.

Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Constitutional challenge to a provision related to religious practices.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to declare the provision unconstitutional.

Filing Reason

The provision was claimed to be outdated and unconstitutional.

Issues

Whether the impugned provision is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the provision is outdated and lacks relevance. The respondents' arguments are not mentioned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that charity and compassion, while present in all religions, do not constitute essential religious practices under Article 25, and the provision aimed at preventing ill-considered death bequests has become irrelevant.

Judgment Excerpts

The message of charity and compassion is to be found in all religions without any exception. The impugned provision was enacted to prevent persons from making ill-considered death bequest under religious influence.

Procedural History

The case was filed as a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of a provision related to religious practices.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 25, Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Wife's Petition in Domestic Violence Case Due to Lack of Domestic Relationship. The court held that a wife who had been living separately for over 20 years and had no shared household with the husband could not claim relie...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Sarpanch's Challenge to No Confidence Motion in Gram Panchayat Dispute. Petitioner's removal upheld as meeting complied with procedural requirements under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Rules.