Case Law Details
Case Name : Ravi Agrawal Vs Union of India (Supreme Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Ravi Agrawal Vs Union of India (Supreme Court)
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. For example, where guardian has become very old but is still alive, though he is not able to earn any longer or he may be a person who was in service and has retired from the said service and is not having any source of income. In such cases, it may be difficult for such a p
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
sir, what is the present position. can I surrender the jeewan aadhar policy taken on my handicapped son for his benefits. please replay me to the above mail address. thanks. sarada
The Chief Information Commissioner made the following decision on 18th August, 2020
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the
light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission expressed its
extreme displeasure on the inaction on the part of the Respondent and the callousness with which
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107 of 2017
dated January 03, 2019 was being addressed. Moreover, as stated by the Appellant during the
hearing, he had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No 706 of 2020
where he is contesting the issues on merits as also the compliance of the earlier decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Commission and that the matter was sub-judice. Hence no
further intervention of the Commission is required at this stage. The non-compliance application
stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Chief Information Commissioner
Hon’ble Court convinced that payment of annuity under the policy should be more suitable to a handicap person during the lifetime of the guardian, vide para 22 and para 23 of the Judgement. The relief to the under mentioned person could be granted within the existing legislative framework :-
1. A person not covered under the tax paying limit of Income Tax.
2. The person who, although covered under the income tax paying limit, but has not availed the tax exemption for taking this policy.
Further fundamental rights of handicapped person and fundamental rights of his parent/policy holder should be distinguished. This petition was filed to protect the Fundamental Rights of disabled persons, but the Government of India wrongly argued/mentioned about rationality of tax exemption under section 80 DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provided to the parent of the handicapped person. Section 80 DD is providing tax deduction to the parent/guardian and not to the handicapped person. The petitioner has not challenged the fundamental right of the parent/guardian to get the tax exemption for taking this insurance policy for his handicapped dependent. The fundamental rights of the handicapped person should not be denied on the ground that the tax exemption was availed by their parent, because the tax exemption was not availed by the disabled person.
OFFHAND
The observations in para 22, it is noted, do more than adequattely / explicitly justifiy why the presently rigid statutory provisions, for stated common sense reasoning, in order to serve the very objective of the section and to meet the ends of natural justice ought to be recodified. Having held so, is this not a fit enough case in which the apex court, in exercise of its wide powers, could have differently decided, by reading down the section; instead of simply ” urging upon ‘respondent No.1 to have a RELOOK into this provision by taking into consideration all the aspects, including those highlighted by the Court in this judgment, and EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY of making suitable amendments.” . For after all, if one is not mistaken, such an alternative recourse by the apex court, if not mistaken , is not uncommon.
Now, with no fórmal time limit specified /fixed, how long the matter is going to take, and likely to be acted upon mercifully , as per the court’s honest reaction tinged with human kindness as recorded in para . 23, is left to any body’s guess; so as to meet the ENDS of justice / the purposes of the differently abled children – fellow human BEINGS?
We ordinary mortals can do nothing except keep prayng for their well being for the TIME BEING ?!