Case Name: Prafulla Govinda Baruah vs. The State of Assam and Anr.
Case Number: WP(C)/2919/2018
Date of Judgment: May 14, 2024
Quorum:
- Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves two writ petitions filed before the Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/2919/2018 and WP(C)/283/2024, challenging the constitutional validity of Article 11 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment). Late Tulsi Govinda Barua, brother of the petitioner in WP(C) No.2919/2018, executed his last Will and Testament on 17.05.2010. The petitioner, named as the Executor in the Will, applied for grant of probate before the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, after his demise on 17.11.2012. The District Judge granted probate of the last Will subject to payment of due Court fees on the property’s present value. The valuation of the properties amounted to around Rs.3 Crores, requiring a court fee of over Rs.28 Lakhs. The petitioner, being over 90 years old and merely an Executor, not a beneficiary, faced difficulty in paying the substantial court fee. Various alternatives were explored, but none proved feasible. Hence, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the court fee levy through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in WP(C) No.283/2024, the petitioner approached the Court challenging the same provision as the court fee required for obtaining probate as the executor of her father’s property was substantial. The petitioners argued that the Court Fees Act, a measure to regulate fees in public offices and certain matters in the state, unfairly imposed an ascending scale of fees for obtaining probate or letter of administration, ranging from 2% to 7% ad valorem without an upper limit, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They pointed out that other states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal had provisions with upper limits on probate fees, highlighting the discriminatory nature of Assam’s law. The State justified the fee levy, citing the importance of revenue for developmental activities. They argued against a uniform cap on fees, considering the differing financial conditions of states. The court, after considering various Supreme Court judgments, concluded that the fee should correlate with the services rendered and not be used to increase general revenue. It found the lack of an upper limit for probate fees in Assam discriminatory and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Gauhati High Court declared Article 11 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment) unconstitutional and directed the state to reconsider and rationalize the fee levy.
ISSUES
- Whether the Constitutional Validity of Article 11 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment) is upheld.
- Whether the provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality):
- Whether the levy of court fees is equitable and fair.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
- The petitioners filed the writ petitions under this article, which empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
- The petitioners invoked this article, which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. They argued that the impugned provision violates this article due to its discriminatory nature.
Article 11 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment):
- This provision pertains to the levy of court fees for the grant of probate or letters of administration at a rate of 7% ad valorem where the value of the properties exceeds Rs.5,00,000, without any upper limit.
Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950:
- This amendment brought into effect the provision under challenge, specifically the ad valorem court fee rate for probate or letters of administration.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellants argued that the ad valorem court fee provision under the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They contended that it creates an unreasonable and arbitrary classification by imposing disproportionately higher fees on individuals with larger estates, leading to discrimination. The appellants claimed that the 7% ad valorem fee on estates exceeding Rs. 5,00,000 is excessive and not justified by the services rendered by the judiciary. They argued that court fees should cover judicial service costs, and the impugned provision deviates from this principle, effectively functioning as a revenue-raising measure. The appellants noted that other states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have reasonable caps on court fees for probate and letters of administration. The absence of a cap in Assam imposes undue financial burdens on its citizens, leading to inequality and injustice. The appellants referred to Supreme Court judgments, such as: Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd. vs. The Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department & Anr. (1973), P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1989), P.R. Sriramulu & Anr. vs. Secretary to Government of Madras (1996) These cases support the view that excessive court fees without an upper limit violate Article 14 and are unconstitutional. The appellants argued that the high court fees create a significant financial barrier, deterring individuals from seeking probate or letters of administration, thus undermining access to justice and the rule of law.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondents argued that the ad valorem court fee under the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950, serves a legitimate state interest by generating revenue. They contended that court fees contribute significantly to the state’s resources, which is essential for maintaining and improving judicial infrastructure and services. The respondents maintained that the court fee structure is based on a rational classification. They argued that estates of higher value can afford to pay more, and the ad valorem fee structure ensures that those who can pay more contribute more to the state resources. This, they claimed, is a reasonable and equitable way to structure court fees. The respondents contended that while other states may have different court fee structures, this does not automatically render Assam’s structure unconstitutional. They argued that each state has the discretion to design its court fee system based on its unique financial needs and administrative considerations. The respondents referred to precedents where the Supreme Court upheld ad valorem court fees as constitutionally valid. They argued that the principle of higher fees for higher claims is well-established and recognized by the judiciary, indicating that Assam’s court fee structure is in line with legal norms. The respondents asserted that the court fees do not impede access to justice. They argued that the fees are proportional to the value of the estate and do not constitute an unreasonable barrier. Additionally, they pointed out that mechanisms exist for individuals facing genuine financial hardship to seek relief or exemptions from court fees.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court analysed the constitutional validity of the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950, focusing on whether ad valorem fees violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found the fee structure, which scales with the estate’s value, to be constitutional. It recognized the state’s authority to levy such fees as long as they are not excessive or arbitrary. The Court evaluated the reasonableness and rationality of the fee structure, concluding that the classification based on estate value was rational and served a legitimate state interest. It upheld the principle that those with higher value estates could contribute more to state revenue, aiding judicial system maintenance and improvements. Therefore, the classification was neither discriminatory nor arbitrary.
In comparing Assam’s fee structure to other states, the Court noted that variations in court fee structures among states do not imply inequality or unconstitutionality. Each state has the discretion to design its system based on its unique needs. The differences did not render Assam’s structure unconstitutional. The Court referenced precedents where ad valorem fees were upheld, emphasising that this fee principle is well-established and judicially recognized. It found Assam’s structure consistent with legal norms and precedents.
Addressing concerns about access to justice, the Court acknowledged the need to ensure fees do not become barriers. It found that existing provisions for exemptions and relief in genuine financial hardship cases provided adequate safeguards. The fees imposed were deemed proportional and did not unreasonably impede access to justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950, ruling that the ad valorem fee structure did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the fee structure was reasonable, served legitimate state interests, and did not hinder access to justice.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
