RAVI AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 03-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
RAVI AGRAWAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107 of 2017)
JANUARY 03, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80DD – s.80DD provides for
incentive to the persons whose dependents are persons with disability
– In order to give effect to the said special provision, LIC floated
insurance policy named ‘Jeevan Aadhar’ for the benefit of
handicapped dependents  – Petition filed in the interest of
handicapped  children whose parents have taken Jeevan Aadhar
Policy (Table 114) of the LIC for the livelihood of their children –
Grievance of petitioner pertained to Circular No. CO/CRM/PS/622/
23 dated January 24, 2008 issued by the Income Tax Department
which provided that no benefit can be paid to dependent till the
proposer/life assured survives – Prayer of petitioner was that by
incorporating such a provision, the respondents are denying the
benefit of the insurance to the handicapped persons to get annuity
or lumpsum amount during the lifetime of the parent/guardian of
such a handicapped person, whereas the beneficiaries of other life
insurance policy are getting annuity during the lifetime of the person
who has taken insurance policy and this violated the fundamental
right of equality of the handicapped person enshrined in Art.14 of
the Constitution – Prayer of petitioner was to suitably amend s.80DD
of the Act – Held:  The purpose of enacting s.80DD is to secure the
future of the persons suffering from disability, namely, after the
death of the parent/guardian – s.80DD provides condition that
amount/annuity under the policy is to be released only after the
death of the person assured – This is the legislative mandate – This
Court cannot give a direction to the Parliament to amend or make a
statutory provision in a specified manner – The Court can only
determine, in exercise of its power of judicial review, as to whether
such a provision passes the muster of the Constitutional Scheme –
Respondents successfully demonstrated that the main provision was
based on reasonable classification, which has a valid rational
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 8
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
behind it and there is a specific objective sought to be achieved
thereby – Although the petitioner may be justified in pointing out
that there could be harsh cases where handicapped persons may
need the payment on annuity or lumpsum basis even during the
lifetime of their parents/guardians, however, it is for the Legislature
to take care of these aspects and to provide suitable provision by
making necessary amendments in s.80DD – Respondent No.1 to
relook into this provision by taking into consideration all the aspects
and explore the possibility of making suitable amendments – Writ
petition disposed of – Social Justice – Disability – PIL – Constitution
of India – Art.14.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD:   1.  Section 80DD of the Act is a provision made by
the Parliament under the Act in order to give incentive to the
persons whose dependents are persons with disability.  Incentive
is to give such persons concessions in income tax by allowing
deductions of the amount specified in Section 80DD of the Act  in
case such parents/guardians of dependents with disability take
insurance policies of the nature specified in this provision.
Purpose is to encourage these parents/guardians to make regular
payments for the benefit of dependents with disability.  In that
sense, the Legislature, in its wisdom thought it appropriate to
allow deductions in respect of such contribution made by the
parent/guardian in the form of premium paid in respect of such
insurance policies.  Of course, this deduction is admissible only
when conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. [Para 15][20-F-
H]
2.1   Insofar as insurance policy in question is concerned, it
incorporates a condition  to the effect that the amount shall not
be given to the handicapped persons during the lifetime of the
parent/guardian/life assured. This is in conformity with Section
80DD(2)(b) of the Act. To some extent, the grievance of the
petitioner may be justified in this behalf in the plea that when
there is a need to get these funds even for the benefit of
handicapped persons, that will not be given to such a person only
because of the reason that the assured who is a parent/guardian
is still alive. This would happen even when the entire premium
towards the said policy has been paid.  The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.