Representational image
| Photo Credit: G. Moorthy
The Madras High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Communications and the Director General of Postal Services (DGPS) to solve a confusion that prevails over delivery of items addressed to dead persons due to an interplay between two provisions of the Post Office Regulations, 2024.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan have requested Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan to send a copy of their order to the DGPS for compliance and further action as may be necessary to solve the confusion.
Till then, the postal department must hand over all items addressed to dead persons to their legal heirs, if the latter were found at the residence of the deceased, the Division Bench ordered while disposing of a writ petition to strike down Regulation 51 of the Post Office Regulations, 2024.
Mohana Ramaswami of Chinna Neelankarai in Chennai had filed the writ petition on the prime ground that the postal department was not handing over to her, the letters and other articles addressed to her deceased husband and instead returning them back to the senders.
Her counsel R. Subramanian brought it to the notice of the court that the DGPS had framed the Post Office Regulations, 2024 in exercise of the powers conferred on the officer under Section 13 of the Post Office Act, 2023. The regulations had come into force from December 16, 2024.
Postal items returned to senders
Regulation 51 states items addressed to deceased persons must be treated as if they were unclaimed and disposed of as per Regulation 65(2). Further, Regulation 65(2) states undelivered items must be sent back to the sender or the authorised person concerned, the counsel pointed out.
However, the judges wrote “the provision (Regulation 51), in terms, does not appear to be suffering from any arbitrariness, much less manifest arbitrariness, warranting interference of this court.” They, said, a confusion appears to have arise because of interplay between Regulation 51 and 65(1)(c).
The Division Bench pointed out Regulation 65(1)(c) clearly states 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.”
Legal interpretation
Laying stress on the words “if there is no person to whom the item could properly be delivered,” found in Regulation 65(1)(c), the judges said, a fair and logical interpretation of the regulations should only mean that the items should be returned to the sender only if they could not be handed over to legal representatives.
Authoring the verdict, the Chief Justice wrote: “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.”
The Chief Justice added: “The 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 writ petitioner.”
His Bench directed the Ministry and the DGPS to either amend the 2024 Regulations to define the category of persons to whom the items could be delivered or fill in the gap by clarifying the position properly. Till then, all postal items must be handed over to legal heirs found at the residence of the deceased, the court ordered.
Published – March 04, 2026 01:39 pm IST
