Mail To Be Delivered To Legal Heirs When Addressee Is Deceased: Madras High Court Directs Ministry To Clarify Post Office Regulations
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan has held that postal articles addressed to a deceased person may be handed over to the legal heirs residing at the deceased's address, rather than being returned to the sender. The court was hearing a petition challenging Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulations, 2024, filed by a widow whose mail addressed to her late husband was being returned. Finding a gap in the regulations regarding the category of persons eligible to receive such articles, the court directed the Ministry of Communications to amend the regulations accordingly.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking a declaration that Regulation 51 was ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that Regulation 51 created uncertainty in the delivery of postal articles addressed to deceased persons because it conflicted with Regulation 65(1)(c). According to the petitioner, the regulatory framework became vague as Regulation 51 directed that items addressed to deceased persons be treated as unclaimed, while Regulation 65 contained provisions relating to undelivered items where the addressee was dead and there was no person to whom the item could properly be delivered.
The petitioner further stated that after the death of her spouse, postal articles addressed to the deceased were not being delivered to her despite her being the legal heir residing at the same address. Instead, the postal authorities returned such items to the sender without attempting delivery. The petitioner relied on administrative instructions dated 16.12.2024 concerning mail operations under the 2024 Regulations, which indicated that in cases where the addressee was deceased, items were to be returned to the sender.
The respondents opposed the challenge and relied on the regulatory framework governing undelivered postal articles, including Regulation 65 which outlines circumstances under which undelivered items are to be returned to the sender or sent to the Returned Letter Office.
The Court examined the relationship between Regulation 51 and Regulation 65 of the Post Office Regulations, 2024. It recorded that “Regulation 51 provides that the items addressed to persons who are dead shall be treated as if they were unclaimed and disposed of as per the provisions of Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 65.”
While interpreting Regulation 65, the Court noted that “Regulation 65 provides for the manner in which undelivered items are to be dealt with in certain specified cases.” The Court further recorded that “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.”
Addressing the interaction between the two provisions, the Court observed that “a fair and logical interpretation of the aforesaid two Regulations would only mean that in those cases where the addressee of 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.”
The Court also took note of the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the manner in which the regulations were being implemented by postal authorities. It recorded that “in actual practice, after promulgation of the new Regulations, where the addressee is dead, without making delivery to person to whom the item could be properly delivered, like the legal representatives or the spouse of the deceased, the items are being returned.”
In examining the legal effect of the administrative instructions relied upon by the petitioner, the Court stated that “it is trite law that instructions issued merely supplement and do not supplant the law.” The Court further stated that “Regulations framed are in the nature of subsidiary legislation and have the force of law.” It added that “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.”
The Court further observed that “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.”
At the same time, the Court recorded the presence of a regulatory gap, stating that “Regulation does not expressly provide as to the category of persons to whom the item can properly be delivered.” The Court noted that “there appears to be a gap and this is causing inconvenience to persons like the petitioner.”
The Court held that “we are, therefore, of the view that provisions do not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness or legislative competence nor can be said to be ultra vires the enabling Act, but, in the matter of its implementation, confusion prevails. 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.”
“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. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General
Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v The Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 5160 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice G. Arul Murugan
