The Madras High Court directed that postal articles addressed to deceased persons should be delivered to their legal heirs living at the same address instead of being returned to the sender. The Court also asked the Ministry of Communications to clarify gaps in the Post Office Regulations, 2024.
The Madras High Court has asked the Ministry of Communications to address a gap in the Post Office Regulations, 2024 while dealing with postal articles addressed to a deceased person. The Court clarified that if the addressee has died, the postal article should not automatically be returned to the sender. Instead, it should be delivered to the legal heirs or family members living at the same address, if such persons are present.
The decision was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan. The Bench interpreted the provisions of the Post Office Regulations and explained that Regulation 51, which treats items addressed to deceased persons as “unclaimed,” must be read together with Regulation 65. Regulation 65 allows postal articles to be delivered to a person to whom the item can “properly be delivered.”
While explaining the legal position, the Court 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.”
The case arose after a woman approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ declaration challenging Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulations, 2024. The regulation was framed by the Director General under Section 13 of the Post Office Act, 2023.
According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband, several postal articles addressed to him were not delivered to her even though she was his legal heir and lived at the same address. Instead, the postal department returned those items to the sender without attempting delivery to any family member. Because of this practice, the petitioner was unable to receive important communications and documents that were meant for her late husband but were relevant to her as his legal heir.
The petitioner argued that Regulation 51 was arbitrary and conflicted with Regulation 65(1)(c). She submitted before the Court that the regulation created uncertainty in the law because it did not clearly explain how postal articles addressed to deceased persons should be handled. According to her, this conflict made the regulation vague and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
While examining the provisions, the Court analysed Regulation 65 in detail and explained how undelivered postal items should be handled. The Bench stated,
“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 further clarified that when both Regulation 51 and Regulation 65 are read together, it becomes clear that returning the postal article to the sender is only the last option. The Bench observed that such return should happen only when the addressee has died and no suitable person is available at the residence to receive the article.
The judges explained,
“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.”
The Court also pointed out that Regulation 51 only states that items addressed to deceased persons should be treated as unclaimed and handled under Regulation 65(2). However, it does not clearly define who qualifies as a person to whom such an item can be properly delivered.
Taking note of this regulatory gap, the Court directed the authorities to address the issue and remove the ambiguity in the rules. The Bench stated,
“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.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that the regulation itself was not unconstitutional. The judges said the provisions did not suffer from manifest arbitrariness, nor did they go beyond the authority granted by the enabling legislation. However, the problem arose due to confusion in how the rules were being implemented.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal by Jayalalithaa’s Legal Heirs Seeking Return of Seized Assets
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition while directing the government to take corrective steps to remove the regulatory gap. The Bench also asked the Additional Solicitor General to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Postal Services so that appropriate action can be taken.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates R. Subramanian and Y. G. Guna Sekar, while the respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General AR. L. Sundaresan.
Case Title:
Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Union of India and Others (W.P. No. 5160 of 2026).
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Disability Certificate
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
