Supreme Court of India
Ravi Agrawal vs Union Of India on 20 August, 2024
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 648
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.706 OF 2020
RAVI AGRAWAL … PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India as a Public Interest Litigation seeking the following prayers to be
granted in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution:
“a. Issue a writ of Mandamus under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ, order
or directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of the
India to the Respondents to execute/carry out the
decision/directions of the Central Information
Commission given on 27th June, 2019 in the Second
Appeal No.CIC/LICOI/A/ 2018/611292-BJ of the
Petitioner.
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus under Article 32 of the
Signature Not Verified Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ, order
Digitally signed by
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.08.31
or directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of the
India to the Respondents to take cognizance of the
16:50:50 IST
Reason:
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
1
W.P. (C) No.706/2020No.1107 of 2017 dated January 03, 2019 and initiate
suitable necessary action accordingly.
c. Issue order or directions to annul/strike down clause(a) of
sub-section (2) of Section 88DD of the Income Tax which
is against the objective of the legislation and violating the
fundamental rights of the handicapped person provided
under Article 14 of the Constitution of the India.
d. Pass such other orders and further orders as may be
deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case.”
2. We have heard Mr. Partha Sil learned counsel who has been
appointed to assist this Court and learned senior counsel Mr. Kailash
Vasdev for Respondent No.2 and learned senior counsel Ms. Nisha
Bagchi for Respondent-Union of India and perused the material on
record.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find
that the concerns expressed by the petitioner in this writ petition have
been assuaged to a certain extent inasmuch as the Parliament has
amended Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act” for the sake of brevity). The said provision deals
with payment of annuity of a lump sum amount for the benefit of a
dependant, being a person with disability, in the event of death of the
individual or the member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in whose
name the subscription to the scheme stipulated in the said provision
2
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
has been made.
4. For easy reference, the said provision is extracted as under:
“80DD. Deduction in respect of maintenance including medical
treatment of a dependent who is a person with disability.–(1) Where an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu
undivided family, who is a resident in India, has,
during the previous year.-
(a) incurred any expenditure for the medical
treatment (including nursing), training and
rehabilitation of a dependant, being a person with
disability; or
(b) paid or deposited any amount under a scheme
framed in this behalf by the Life Insurance
Corporation or any other insurer or the
Administrator or the specified company subject to
the conditions specified in sub-section (2) and
approved by the Board in this behalf for the
maintenance of a dependant, being a person with
disability,the assessee shall, in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum of
seventy-five thousand rupees from his gross total income in
respect of the previous year:
Provided that where such dependant is a person with severe
disability, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as
if for the words “seventy-five thousand rupees”, the words “one
hundred and twenty-five thousand rupees” had been
substituted.
(2) The deduction under clause (b) of sub-section (1)
shall be allowed only if the following conditions are
fulfilled, namely:-
3
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
(a) the scheme referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) provides for payment of annuity or
lump sum amount for the benefit of a dependant,
being a person with disability, in the event of the
death of the individual or the member of the
Hindu undivided family in whose name
subscription to the scheme has been made;
(b) the assessee nominates either the dependant,
being a person with disability or any other person
or a trust to receive the payment on his behalf, for
the benefit of the dependant, being a person with
disability.
(3) If the dependant, being a person with disability,
predeceases the individual or the member of the
Hindu undivided family referred to in sub-section (2),
an amount equal to the amount paid or deposited
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to
be the income of the assessee of the previous year in
which such amount is received by the assessee and
shall accordingly be chargeable to tax as the income
of that previous year.
(4) The assessee, claiming a deduction under this
section, shall furnish a copy of the certificate issued
by the medical authority in the prescribed form and
manner, along with the return of income under
section 139, in respect of the assessment year for
which the deduction is claimed:
Provided that where the condition of disability
requires reassessment of its extent after a period
stipulated in the aforesaid certificate, no deduction
under this section shall be allowed for any
assessment year relating to any previous year
beginning after the expiry of the previous year during
which the aforesaid certificate of disability had
expired, unless a new certificate is obtained from the
medical authority in the form and manner, as may be
prescribed, and a copy thereof is furnished along with
the return of income.”4
W.P. (C) No.706/2020By virtue of the Finance Act, 2022, Section 80DD was amended
with effect from 01.04.2023, in the following terms:
(I) in sub-section (2), for clause (a), the following
clause shall be substituted, namely:––“(a) the scheme referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) provides for payment of annuity or lump
sum amount for the benefit of a dependant, being a
person with disability,––
(i) in the event of the death of the individual
or the member of the Hindu undivided family in
whose name subscription to the scheme has
been made; or
(ii) on attaining the age of sixty years or
more by such individual or the member of the
Hindu undivided family, and the payment or
deposit to such scheme has been discontinued;”;
(II) after sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall
be inserted, namely:–
“(3A) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall not
apply to the amount received by the dependant,
being a person with disability, before his death,
by way of annuity or lump sum by application of
the condition referred to in sub-clause (ii) of
clause (a) of sub-section (2).”.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard
to the order passed by this Court in the case of Ravi Agrawal vs.
Union of India, being Writ Petition (C) No.1107/2017 disposed of on
03.01.2019 and the observations made therein, the Parliament has
5
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
amended Section 80DD of the Act in terms of Section 21 of the
Finance Act, 2022. Consequently, on attaining the age of 60 years or
more by an individual subscriber or a member of an HUF, the payment
or deposit to the scheme envisaged under Section 80DD can be
discontinued and the monetary benefit which would have accumulated
can be made use of. It is submitted that the said amendment ought to
be made retrospective as the same is with effect from 01.04.2023 to
the existing policies as it will benefit a large number of subscribers
who are interested in making use of the benefit of the such policies for
the benefit of the disabled persons on turning 60 years of age. That an
option could be reserved to the subscribers to have the benefit of the
amendment in respect of policies which were made much prior to 2014
as in the said year such policies have been discontinued. He
contended that if the amendment is given a retrospective effect, many
subscribers as well as disabled persons would benefit and hence the
concerns of the petitioner being purely in public interest may be
considered and relief may be granted.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
contended that Section 80DD refers to a situation where the benefit of
the policy would be provided to a disabled person only on the death or
demise of the caregiver or the subscriber. The event at which the
6
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
benefit of the policy would be given to the disabled person is on the
death of the subscriber. It is only then the policy would come to end
and the monetary benefit would be given to the disabled person. That
there is a salient object with which the terms and conditions of the
policy have been devised. That having regard to the order of this Court
on 03.01.2019, there has been an insertion of a clause under Section
80DD taking into consideration the concern expressed by the very
same petitioner herein in the earlier writ petition and to that extent,
amendment has been made. But it is too farfetched for the petitioner
to seek retrospective operation of the said amendment to the existing
policies. It was contended that the terms of the policies cannot be
changed subsequent to their crystallization and the premiums being
paid on the said terms. Therefore, there can be no retrospective
operation of the amendments.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar in light
of the object of Section 80DD and the fact that pursuant to the order
of this Court, the Parliament has taken note of the observations made
in the said order and has amended Section 80DD as extracted above.
We find it difficult to accept the plea made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner to the effect that the said amendment be applied
retrospectively to policies which were taken prior to 2014 so that the
7
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
benefit of the amendment is given to those subscribers also. The
reasons are not far to see. The whole object of Jeevan Adhar Policy is
to benefit disabled persons by making provision by the subscriber post
his demise. The concern and apprehension of a caregiver or subscriber
of a policy for a disabled family member or other person for whose
benefit the policy is taken after the demise of the caregiver is of utmost
significance. It is only with that object that the caregiver or a
subscriber would take such a policy so that he would not leave a
disabled person in the lurch on his demise. If that is the object of the
policy then we do not think the subscriber or the caregiver of the
subscriber should be given the liberty to discontinue the policy during
his lifetime on attaining 60 years of age. That would only go against
the object with which the policy has been taken and against the
interest of the beneficiary, namely, a disabled person.
8. In the circumstances, we do not think that the plea for
retrospective operation of the amendment is in the interest of the
disabled persons nor can this Court give a retrospective operation to
the amendment. This is particularly having regard to the fact that an
insurance contract is in a sense, a commercial contract, having
certain terms and conditions and the sub-stratum of the contract
cannot be removed by giving a retrospective operation to the
8
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
amendment. The benefit under Section 80DD of the Act would have
been availed by the subscribers at the time when they have subscribed
to the policy.
9. It is also relevant to note that the order passed by this Court on
10.02.2023 in Contempt Petition (C) No.408/2024 arising from W.P.(C)
No.1107/2017 (the earlier writ petition), this Court disposed of the
contempt petition for the reason that the Respondent-Union of India
had amended Section 80DD of the Act via Budget 2022-2023 Finance
Act and therefore, the grievance of the persons like the petitioner had
stood addressed though with prospective effect.
10. We have also considered the Proclamation on the Full
Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian
and Pacific Region, 1992; and the subsequent enactments, namely, the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which has been substituted by the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional
Protocol 2006; and, the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956.
11. In view of the said observations, we are not inclined to take a
different view of the matter and particularly having regard to the
9
W.P. (C) No.706/2020
reasons assigned by us as aforesaid.
In the circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of.
We place on record our sincere appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Mr. Partha Sil, learned counsel appointed to
assist this Court.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
August 20, 2024
10