Posts To Be Delivered To Family When Addressee Is Deceased: Madras High Court Asks Ministry For Clarity On Delivery To Legal Heirs

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was confusion on the category of persons who could collect the article since it had not been defined under the regulations. The court thus directed the Ministry of Communications to make suitable amendments to the Post Office Regulations to clearly define the persons to whom items could be delivered, where the addressee is dead.

Till the regulations are suitably amended, the court clarified that the articles could be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased, as they would undoubtedly fall within the category of persons to whom items could be delivered.

“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,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by a woman seeking to declare Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulation 2024 as ultra vires and to strike it down. As per Regulation 51, items addressed to deceased person shall be treated as if they were unclaimed and disposed of as per provisions of Regulation 65(2). As per Regulation 65(2), undelivered items were to be delivered to the sender or authorised person and any proof of delivery was not to be destroyed.

The woman's grievance was that after her husband's death, all items which were addressed to him was not being delivered to her but being returned, which was resulting in non-receipt of many communications to which she was entitled to, being the legal heir of the deceased husband.

Thus, the petitioner had argued that the regulation suffered from manifest arbitrariness and was in conflict with Regulation 65(1)(c). It was argued that by framing such conflicting provision in the regulation, the delivery of posts where the addressee was dead had become uncertain and vague. The petitioner argued that the regulation should be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court, after going through the regulation, noted that it did not suffer from any arbitrariness, warranting interference from the court.

The court however noted that the confusion was mainly due to the interplay between two provisions, Regulation 51 and Regulation 65. The court noted that as per Regulation 51, items addressed to persons who were dead were to be treated as unclaimed and disposed of. Whereas, Regulation 65 stated that undelivered items, where the addressee is dead and there is no person to whom it can be delivered, should be sent back to the sender.

The court said that a fair and logical interpretation of the two regulations would mean that when the addressee of an undelivered item is dead and there is no person to whom it can be properly delivered, it must be delivered to the sender or authorised person and any proof of the same should not be destroyed.

The court was however informed that in actual practice, when the addressee is dead, without making delivery to person to whom item could be delivered, they were being returned. The court then made it clear that when the addressee is dead, the items should be delivered to the family without delivering it back to the sender.

When the petitioner informed the court that instruction have been issued in respect of Mail Operations as per which the items were to be returned to the sender, the court remarked that instructions only supplement the law and do not supplant it.

“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,” the court said.

Thus, noting that there was no arbitrariness in the regulation, the court was not inclined to declare it illegal. The court however directed the Ministry to list out the persons who could receive items, when the original addressee it dead.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Subramanian For Mr. Y. G. Guna Sekar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General

Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

Case No: W.P.No.5160 of 2026