Mail For Deceased Must Be Delivered To Legal Heirs, Not Returned To Sender: Madras High Court Asks Ministry Of Communications To Clarify Regulations
The Court ordered that until formal amendments are made, postal authorities must hand over articles to the family members of the deceased to prevent undue hardship to legal heirs.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice G.Arul Murugan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has asked the Ministry of Communications to bridge a regulatory gap in the Post Office Regulations, 2024, ruling that mail addressed to a deceased person should be delivered to their legal heirs residing at the same address rather than being summarily returned to the sender.
It was observed that while Regulation 51 treats such items as "unclaimed," it must be read in conjunction with Regulation 65, which allows for delivery to persons to whom the item can "properly be delivered."
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed, “It is trite law that instructions issued merely supplement and do not supplant the law. Regulations framed are in the nature of subsidiary legislation and have the force of law. The Instructions have to be read in conjunction with and in the manner that it only supplements the law and does not supplant or in conflict with law. Instructions, therefore, have to be read in accordance with Scheme of Regulations 51 and 65 and not otherwise. Returning to sender would eventually arise only when the addressee is dead and there is no person to whom the item could properly be delivered. That means, once an item is taken for delivery to the house of a person and if it is found that the person is not alive, in that case, if it could be properly delivered to any other person in the family residing in the house, as is provided in Regulation 65(1)(c), it shall have to be delivered to him and there is no occasion to return to the sender. Regulation does not expressly provide as to the category of persons to whom the item can properly be delivered. There appears to be a gap and this is causing inconvenience to persons like the petitioner.”
Advocate R. Subramanian appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of declaration declaring the provisions of Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulations 2024 framed by the Director General under Section 13 of the Post Office Act, 2023, as ultra vires. Petitioner approached the Court because, after the death of her husband, all the items, which were addressed in the name of her deceased husband, were not being delivered to her, but were being returned without effecting delivery, which was resulting in non-receipt of many communications and articles of delivery to which petitioner was entitled to, being the legal heir of the deceased.
Contention of the Parties
It was a case of the Petitioner that Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulations, 2024 suffered from manifest arbitrariness inasmuch as it is clearly in conflict with Regulation 65(1)(c). It was submitted that by framing such a conflicting provision in the Regulations, the provision relating to the delivery of posts in respect of a dead person is uncertain and blissfully vague. The provision, therefore, needed to be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the Court
The Court said, “If we look at Regulation 65, it provides for the manner in which undelivered items are to be dealt with in certain specified cases. Amongst other contingencies, Regulation 65(1)(c) provides that an undelivered item, of which the addressee is dead and there is no person to whom the item could properly be delivered, shall not be detained in the post office to which it is addressed and shall be returned to the sender if the item bears clearly on the outside, the name and address of the sender, or otherwise sent to the Returned Letter Office concerned. Importantly, Sub-Regulation (2) of Section 65 provides that the items referred to in Sub-Regulation (1) shall be delivered to the sender or authorised person and any proof of delivery attached thereto shall not be delivered and destroyed.”
The Court said that a fair and logical interpretation of the aforesaid two Regulations would only mean that in those cases where the addressee of the undelivered item is dead, and there is no person to whom the item could properly be delivered, then, it shall be delivered to the sender or authorised person and any proof of delivery thereto shall not be delivered and destroyed. What Regulation 51 provides is that items addressed to persons who are dead shall be treated as if they were unclaimed and disposed of as per Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 65, it added.
“Respondents shall do well to take required steps either by amending the Regulation to clearly define the category of persons to whom the items could properly be delivered or may fill in the gap in the Regulation clarifying the position. Till such amendment in Regulations is made or instructions are provided, it is directed that the legal heirs of the deceased, if they are found at the residence of the deceased, shall be handed over the delivery of article, as, undoubtedly, they would fall in the category of persons to whom items could properly be delivered”, the Court said.
The Court viewed that the provisions did not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness or legislative competence nor can be said to be ultra vires the enabling Act, but, in the matter of its implementation, confusion prevailed.
Accordingly, the Petitioner was disposed of and asked the Additional Solicitor General to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Postal Services for compliance.
Cause Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Union of India and Ors. [W.P.No.5160 of 2026]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates R. Subramanian and Y.G. Guna Sekar
Respondents: Additional Solicitor General AR.L.Sundaresan