1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1107 OF 2017

RAVI AGRAWAL .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

This  writ  petition  is  filed  by the  petitioner, Ravi  Agrawal,  under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation.  The

petition  is  stated  to  be  filed  in  the  interest  of  handicapped  children

whose parents have taken Jeevan Aadhar Policy (Table 114) from the

Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, ‘LIC’) for the livelihood of

their children.  The petitioner himself is a differently abled person as he

is suffering from Cerebral Dysphagia.  The petitioner also is an income

tax assessee whose Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the

Income Tax Department is AAPPA5222M.  He has stated that he has no

personal interest in the subject matter raised in this petition which he

has filed on behalf of the handicapped children.

2

2) Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act’)  provides  for  payment  of  annuity  of  lump  sum  amount  for  the

benefit of a dependant, being a person with disability, in the event of the

death of the individual or the member of the Hindu Undivided Family

(HUF) in whose name subscription to the scheme stipulated in the said

provision  has  been  made.   Though  it  is  a  long  provision,  for  our

purposes it would be suffice to reproduce sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)

thereof, which are as under:

"80DD.  Deduction  in  respect  of  maintenance  including medical  treatment  of  a  dependant  who  is  a  person  with disability.—  (1)  Where  an  assessee,  being  an  individual  or  a Hindu undivided family, who is a resident in India, has, during the previous year,—  

(a) incurred any expenditure for the medical treatment (including nursing),  training  and  rehabilitation  of  a  dependant,  being  a person with disability; or  

(b) paid or deposited any amount under a scheme framed in this behalf by the Life Insurance Corporation or any other insurer or the  Administrator  or  the  specified  company  subject  to  the conditions specified in sub-section (2) and approved by the Board in this behalf for the maintenance of a dependant, being a person with disability, the assessee shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum of seventy-five thousand rupees from his  gross total  income in respect of the previous year:

Provided  that  where  such  dependant  is  a  person  with  severe disability, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for  the  words  “seventy-five  thousand  rupees”,  the  words  “one hundred and twenty-five thousand rupees” had been substituted.

(2)  The deduction under  clause (b)  of  sub-section (1)  shall  be allowed only if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:—

(a)  the  scheme referred to  in clause (b)  of  sub-section (1) provides for payment of annuity or lump sum amount for the

3

benefit of a dependant, being a person with disability, in the event  of  the  death of  the individual  or  the  member  of  the Hindu undivided family in whose name subscription to the scheme has been made;

(b) the assessee nominates either the dependant, being a person with  disability,  or  any  other  person  or  a  trust  to  receive  the payment on his behalf, for the benefit of the dependant, being a person with disability.

(3) If the dependant, being a person with disability, predeceases the  individual  or  the  member  of  the  Hindu  undivided  family referred to in sub-section (2), an amount equal to the amount paid or deposited under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the income of the assessee of the previous year in which such amount is received by the assessee and shall accordingly be chargeable to tax as the income of that previous year.”

3) As per clause (b) of sub-section (1), if an assessee, being an individual

or a HUF, has paid or deposited any amount under the scheme framed

in this behalf by the LIC or any other insurer etc., such an assessee is

entitled  to  deduction  of  a  sum  of  Rs.75,000/-  from  his  Gross  Total

Income in respect of the previous year.  It is subject to the conditions

which  are  specified  in  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  80DD.   We  are

concerned with the condition mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2).

As per this condition, disabled dependant would get annuity or lumpsum

payment  in  the  event  of  death  of  the  individual  or  the  death  of  the

member of the HUF, in whose name subscription to the scheme has

been made.  In order to give effect to the aforesaid special provision

meant for the benefit of persons with disability, LIC has floated insurance

policy  named  ‘Jeevan  Aadhar  (Table  114)’  for  the  benefit  of  the

handicapped dependants.   Accordingly, those assessees who get the

4

Jeevan Aadhar policy for the benefit  of handicapped dependants and

pay or deposit the amount under the said policy become entitled to the

deduction mentioned in Section 80DD of the Act.  Synopsis of the said

policy introduced by the LIC gives a glimpse of the salient features of

this plan and is, thus, reproduced below:

"A) Synopsis of Plan

1)  Age at entry (life assured) – Minimum 22 years, Maximum 65 years. (handicapped dependant – 1 year) The  age  of  the  life  assured  and  handicapped  dependant  are required to be admitted on the basis of standard age proof.

2)  Maximum premium ceasing age – 75 years.

3)  Premium paying term – 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 & 35 years.

4)  Policy term this is whole life plan.

5)  Sum assured – Minimum 50000, Maximum – no limit.

6)   Mode of  payment  –  Yearly, Half-Yearly, Quarterly, Monthly, SSS, Single also.

7)  Rebate on mode of payment – Yearly 3% of tabular premium, Half-yearly 1.5% of tabular premium, Quarterly/ Monthly/SSS – no rebate.

8)  Rebate on high sum assured - 25,000 to 49,999 – Re.1/- per 1000 sum assured 50,000 and above – Rs.2/- per 1000 sum assured.

9)  All extra mortality rate class are allowed.

10)  All female categories i.e. I, II, III are alloewd.

11)  Only NMS is allowed, not NMG.

12)  Besides proposal form No. 3000, the life assured (proposer) will be required to submit an addendum declaring the disability of the  handicapped  dependant  and  a  certificate  stating  that handicapped dependant is suffering from a permanent  physical

5

disability (including blindness) or having mental retardatoin as per rules  A physician, a surgeon, an oculist or a psychiatrist working in Govt  hospital  should clearly state that  due to disability such person’s  capacity  for  normal  work  or  engaging  in  a  gainful employment or occupation is considerably reduced.”

4) The  grievance  of  the  petitioner  pertains  to  Circular  No.

CO/CRM/PS/622/23  dated  January  24,  2008  which  is  issued  by the

Income Tax Department.  As per this Circular, no benefit can be paid to

the dependant till the proposer/life assured survives.  Relevant portion of

this Circular is extracted below:

"Representations were received for allowing annuity payments for the disabled dependant before death of parents/life assured after a certain age.  But CBDT/Govt. Of India have refused to do so. Hence it is clarified that no benefit can be paid to dependant till the proposer/life assured survives.”

5) The Jeevan Aadhar plan also mentions the aforesaid Circular  on the

basis  of  which  clause  pertaining  to  maturity  claim  in  the  policy  is

mentioned as under:

"F.  MATURITY CLAIM

1)  IN FORCE POLICY OR FULLY PAID UP POLICY

Policy does not have maturity claim.  The provisions of maturity claim under whole life policies i.e. after completing the age of 80 years by life assured: is not applicable under this policy.

Representations were received for allowing annuity payments for the disabled dependant before death of parents/life assured after certain age.   But  CBDT/Govt.  Of  India  have refused to  do so. Hence it is clarified that no benefit can be paid to dependant till the  proposer/life  assured  survives.   (co/crm/ps/622/23  dated 24/01/2008).”

It  is,  thus,  clear  that  even  when the entire  subscription is  paid

6

under this policy meant for handicapped persons, this policy does not

have maturity claim.  The amount is payable to the dependant only on

the demise of the proposer/life assured.

6) Submission of the petitioner is that by incorporating such a provision, the

respondents are denying the benefit of the insurance to the handicapped

persons to get  annuity or  lumpsum amount during the lifetime of  the

parent/guardian  of  such  a  handicapped  person,  whereas  the

beneficiaries of other life insurance policy are getting annuity during the

lifetime of the person who has taken insurance policy.  This, according to

the  petitioner,  violates  the  fundamental  right  of  equality  of  the

handicapped person enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.   

7) The  petitioner  states  that  he  had  lodged  a  complaint  before  the

Insurance  Regulatory  and  Development  Authority  of  India  (IRDA)  on

August 06, 2014.  However, the said Authority in its reply expressed its

inability  to  provide  any  help  having  regard  to  the  afore-mentioned

Circular  dated  January  24,  2008  of  the  CBDT.  The  petitioner  even

approached  the  Court  of  the  Chief  Commissioner  for  Persons  with

Disabilities raising the aforesaid grievance.   The Chief  Commissioner

heard the matter on various dates and passed the order advising the

CBDT  to  once  again  examine  the  matter  in  consultation  with  the

Department  of  Empowerment  of  Persons with  Disabilities,  Ministry of

7

Social Justice and Empowerment, as well as National Trust.  Relevant

portion thereof reads as under:

"11.   During  the  hearing  on  10.03.2015,  it  was  observed  that Central  Board  of  Direct  Taxes  (CBDT)  had  already  made  the submission that the issue of allowing for annuity payment to the dependant  with  disability  under  Jeevan  Aadhar  Policy  to commence after certain age of a subscriber at 55, 58 or 60 years was considered during the budgetary exercise for 2007-08 and the same was not found to be acceptable.

12.  In the light  of  the mandate of  the Chief  Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, no direction can be given to CBDT or LIC as there is no allegation of non implementation of the stated policy or its terms & conditions.  It is, however, the view of this office that Jeevan Aadhar is not the only LIC Policy that gives the benefit  of  Income  Tax  exemption  and  only  a  few  parents  of persons with disabilities may be tax payers to be able to avail the tax exemption, such a well intentioned policy should not be linked to such benefits as tax exemption.  As the primary objective of the policy is  to benefit  a  person with disability, he/she should start getting the annuity as early as possible in his/her lifetime.

13.  With regard to the allegation of the complainant in Case No. 2602/1093/2014 that the LIC Agents and professionals told him at the  time  of  selling  the  policy  that  his  child  would  start  getting pension @ Rs.2000/-  per  month for  every one lakh of  insured amount is concerned, LIC is advised to investigate the matter and intimate the outcome to the complainant under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of these Record of  proceedings.   In  case  it  is  established  that  it  is  a  case  of mis-selling,  then  LIC  is  advised  to  suitably  compensate  the complainant.

14.   As National  Trust  was not  represented during the hearing despite  the  notice  and  it  has  suggested  that  insured  amount should be disbursed to the beneficiaries through its LICs, National rust is directed to get in touch with the LIC and obtain the details of the Jeevan Aadhar Policy holders.  After obtaining the consent of  the  policy  holders  for  distribution  of  annuity  through  LLCs National Trust shall inform LIC for making National Trust as the nominee/Trusty for receiving the amount of annuity in respect of such policy holders on the terms & conditions as may be finalized between LIC and National Trust and ensure that a mechanism is put  in  place to disburse the amount  of  annuity to the disabled dependants of the policy holders till the dependant is alive.

8

15.   Both  the  complainants  strongly  felt  that  like  other  policy holders, Jeevan Aadhar Policy should also be allowed to mature after 55 years of age of proposer and the annuity amount should be disbursed through the LICs of National Trust.

16.   In  the  light  of  the  demand of  the  complainants,  CBDT is advised to  once again  examine the matter  in  consultation with Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and National Trust.”

8) The Chief Commissioner had even sent reminder thereof to the CBDT to

look into the matter.  However, nothing moved at the level of the CBDT.

In  fact,  the  petitioner  thereafter  lodged his  grievance with  the  Prime

Minister’s Office through Centralised Public  Grievance Redressal  and

Monitoring System Portal on October 15, 2015.  As he did not receive

any response, it provoked the petitioner to file the instant writ petition

with the following prayers:

"(a)  Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to Respondents No 1 to amend Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act to allow for the payment of annuity or lump sum amount to a person with disability on attaining the age of 55/58 years by the guardian/parent of disabled person, in addition to in the event of death of the guardian/parent.

(b)  Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents No 2 to amend the Scheme of Jeevan Aadhar Policy (Table 114) to allow for the payment of annuity or lump sum amount to a person with disability on attaining the age of  55/58  years  by  the  guardian/parent  of  disabled  person,  in addition to in the event of death of the guardian/parent.

(c)  Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents No 2 to pay annuity or a lump sum amount to a person with disability, the guardian/parents of whom already attained the age of 55/58 or will attend the age of 55/58 years in the future.

9

(d)  Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No 2 to make proper arrangement for the payment of an annuity/pension to the handicapped dependant after  the  death  of  the  guardian,  without  any  further  formality except the filing of death certificate of the parents/guardian.  All the paper formalities for the payment of annuity/pension should be completed by the LIC after premium paying term of the policy and a certificate should be issued by the LIC to the effect that all the formalities  for  the  payment  of  annuity/pension  has  been completed, except filing of death certificate of parents/guardian. This  issuing  of  the  certificate  should  be  conclusive  proof  for releasing of annuity/pension, pending till filing of death certificate of parents/guardian.

(e)  Pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

9) In  essence,  the  grievance  of  the  petitioner  is  that  benefit  of  Jeevan

Aadhar policy should not be deferred till the death of the assessee/life

assured and it  should be allowed to be utilised for the benefit  of  the

disabled person even during the lifetime of the assessee.

10) Union  of  India  has  filed  its  affidavit  giving  justification  for  the

aforesaid  course  of  action.   In  this  regard,  it  is  submitted  that  vide

Finance Act (No.2),  1998, Section 80DD was substituted for Sections

80DD and 80DDA.  The earlier Section 80DD provided for a deduction

of Rs.15,000/- to an individual or HUF on account of any expenditure

incurred  for  the  medical  treatment  (including  nursing),  training  and

rehabilitation of a dependant relative of an individual or member of HUF.

The substitution was done to provide for composite Section in respect of

deduction for expenditure on medical treatment, rehabilitation etc. and

10

for payment made under a scheme of LIC or any other insurer for the

dependant disabled person.  Submission is that in effect Section 80DD

amalgamates  the  provisions  of  the  two  sections,  namely,  80DD and

80DDA.  Thus, both erstwhile Section 80DDA and present Section 80DD

provide  that  the  annuity  or  lump  sum amount  for  the  benefit  of  the

dependant who is a person with disability will be disbursed only after the

death  of  the  subscriber.   Jeevan  Aadhar  scheme  of  LIC  has  been

designed keeping in mind the tax benefits under Section 80DDA/80DD

of the Act.

11) It  is  also submitted by respondent  No.1/Union of  India  that  the

aforesaid provision was specifically provided for in the Act keeping in

view the fact  that  the guardians of  children with disability are always

faced  with  the  grim  reality  about  the  need  for  maintenance  of  the

disabled after the death of the primary care giver, i.e. the parent or the

guardian.  Many of them would like to deposit some amount during their

lifetime in some special instrument which would ensure payment of a

reasonable  sum  regularly  to  the  disabled  on  their  death.   Thus,  a

separate  deduction  from  Gross  Total  Income  of  a  specified  amount

deposited  in  a  year  in  any  scheme  of  LIC  or  any  other  insurer

specifically framed for providing recurring or lump sum payment for the

maintenance and upkeep of a handicapped dependant after the death of

the assessee and approved by the CBDT in this behalf was incorporated

11

in the statute.  As the scheme was designed to, to a great extent, to

assuage the anxiety in the minds of parents/guardians of handicapped

dependants  about  the  destiny  of  their  wards  on  their  death  and,

therefore, to allow for annuity payments to the handicapped dependant

under  Jeevan Aadhar  policy to commence after  a certain age of  the

subscriber is not possible.

12) Meeting the argument of the petitioner based on Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, it is argued that the deduction under Section 80DD

of the Act has been specifically provided for persons with disability.  This

is  a  valid  classification for  providing specific  regime for  this  class of

persons.   The  stated  objective  of  the  scheme  was  to  assure  the

parents/guardian of  a dependant with disability of  regular  payment of

amount  for  the  care  of  such  dependant  after  the  death  of  the

parent/guardian.   Attention is  drawn to the explanatory memorandum

relating to Finance Bill, 1998, which is as under:

"Rationalisation of benefits available to parents and guardian of physically handicapped and disabled dependant.

Under  the  existing  provisions  of  section  80DD,  a  deduction  of Rs.15,000/- is allowed to an individual or Hindu Undivided Family in  respect  of  expenditure  incurred  on  medical  treatment  of  a handicapped dependant.  Section 80DDA allows for a separate deduction  to  a  parent  or  guardian  in  respect  of  deposits  upto Rs.20,000/-  made  specified  schemes  of  Life  Insurance Corporation or Unit Trust of India.  It has been felt that the parents or guardian of  handicapped dependants may not  have to incur expenditure on medical  treatment  of  a  handicapped dependant every year.  However, the parent or the guardian would always feel the need to provide for the future maintenance of the disabled

12

dependant.  The existing provisions do not take such situations into  account.   In  order  to  allow a  choice  to  the  parent  or  the guardian to spend either on the medical treatment of or for the future need of the handicapped dependant, as the case may be, the Bill seeks to provide a new section 80DD.  With this provision, the  parent  or  the  guardian  could  claim  a  deduction  upto Rs.40,000/- for the medical treatment and for future needs of the handicapped dependant in the manner most suited to his needs. The existing sections 80DD and 80DDA would get consequentially merged with increase in overall limit of deduction from Rs.35,000 to Rs.40,000/-.”

13) Number of judgments were cited by the learned Additional Solicitor

General  appearing for  the Union of  India to placate the argument  of

discrimination  based  on  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.   Insofar  as

respondent No.2/LIC is concerned, its simple answer is that the clause

in the policy is as per the prescribed norm approved by the CBDT.  Of

course,  LIC has also supported the reasons given by Union of  India

behind the aforesaid Circular.

14) We have considered the respective submissions.

15) At the outset, it may be observed that Section 80DD of the Act is a

provision made by the Parliament under the Act in order to give incentive

to the persons whose dependants are persons with disability.  Incentive

is  to  give  such  persons  concessions  in  income  tax  by  allowing

deductions of the amount specified in Section 80DD of the Act  in case

such  parents/guardians  of  dependants  with  disability  take  insurance

policies  of  the  nature  specified  in  this  provision.   Purpose  is  to

13

encourage these parents/guardians to make regular payments for the

benefit of dependants with disability.  In that sense, the Legislature, in its

wisdom thought  it  appropriate to allow deductions in  respect  of  such

contribution made by the parent/guardian in the form of premium paid in

respect  of  such  insurance  policies.   Of  course,  this  deduction  is

admissible only when conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.

16) Insofar  as  insurance  policy  is  concerned,  it  incorporates  a

condition (which is impugned in the present writ petition) to the effect

that the amount shall not be given to he handicapped persons during the

lifetime of  the parent/guardian/life  assured.  This  is  in  conformity  with

Section 80DD(2)(b) of the Act.   

17) To some extent, the grievance of the petitioner may be justified in

this behalf in the plea that when there is a need to get these funds even

for the benefit of handicapped persons, that will not be given to such a

person  only  because  of  the  reason  that  the  assured  who  is  a

parent/guardian is still alive.  This would happen even when the entire

premium towards the said policy has been paid.  The policy does not

have maturity claim.  Thus, after making the entire premium for number

of  years,  i.e. during the duration of the policy, the amount would still

remain with the LIC.  That may be so.  However, the purpose behind

such a policy is altogether different.   As noted from the provisions of

14

Section  80DD as  well  as  from the  explanatory  memorandum of  the

Finance Bill, 1998, by which this provision was added, the purpose is to

secure the future of the persons suffering from disability, namely, after

the death of the parent/guardian.  The presumption is that during his/her

lifetime,  the  parent/guardian  would  take  care  of  his/her  handicapped

child.

18) Further, such a benefit of deduction from income for the purposes

of tax is admissible subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 80DD

of  the  Act.   The  Legislature  has  provided  the  condition  that

amount/annuity under the policy is to be released only after the death of

the  person  assured.   This  is  the  legislative  mandate.   There  is  no

challenge to this provision.  The prayer is that Section 80DD of the Act

be  suitably  amended.   This  Court  cannot  give  a  direction  to  the

Parliament  to  amend  or  make  a  statutory  provision  in  a  specified

manner.   The  Court  can  only  determine,  in  exercise  of  its  power  of

judicial review, as to whether such a provision passes the muster of the

Constitutional  Scheme.   Though,  there  is  no  specific  prayer  in  this

behalf,  but  in  the body of  writ  petition,  argument  of  discrimination is

raised.   Here,  we  find  that  the  respondents  have  been  able  to

successfully  demonstrate  that  the  main  provision  is  based  on

reasonable classification, which as a valid rational behind it and there is

a specific objective sought to be achieved thereby.

15

19) In State of U.P. and Another v. Kamla Palace, (2000) 1 SCC 557,

this Court, while considering a fiscal statute in relation to Article 14 of the

Constitution, has stated as under:

"11.   Article  14  does  not  prohibit  reasonable  classification  of persons,  objects  and  transactions  by  the  legislature  for  the purpose  of  attaining  specific  ends.  To  satisfy  the  test  of permissible  classification,  it  must  not  be  “arbitrary,  artificial  or evasive”  but  must  be  based  on  some  real  and  substantial distinction bearing  a just  and reasonable relation to  the  object sought to be achieved by the legislature. (See Special Courts Bill, 1978,  Re,  seven-Judge  Bench;  R.K.  Garg  v.  Union  of  India, five-Judge Bench.) It was further held in R.K. Garg case that laws relating  to  economic  activities  or  those  in  the  field  of  taxation enjoy a  greater  latitude than laws touching civil  rights  such as freedom of speech,  religion etc.  Such a legislation may not be struck  down  merely  on  account  of  crudities  and  inequities inasmuch  as  such  legislations  are  designed  to  take  care  of complex situations and complex problems which do not admit of solutions  through  any  doctrinaire  approach  or  straitjacket formulae...”.

20) Further, in  S.K. Dutta, Income Tax Officer  v.  Lawrence Singh

Ingty, (1968) 2 SCR 165, the Constitution Bench of this court held as

under:

"8.  It is not in dispute that taxation laws must also pass the test of Article 14. That has been laid down by this Court in Moopil Nair v. State  of  Kerala.  But  as  observed  by  this  Court  in  East  India Tobacco Co.  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh, in deciding whether a taxation law is discriminatory or not it is necessary to bear in mind that the State has a wide discretion in selecting persons or objects it will tax, and that a statute is not open to attack on the ground that it  taxes some persons or objects and not others; it  is only when within the range of its selection, the law operates unequally, and that cannot be justified on the basis of any valid classification, that it would be violative of Article 14. It is well settled that a State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something. It is allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably.”

16

21) In State of A.P. and Others v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi and Others,

(2001) 7 SCC 708, this Court held:

"8.   What  Article  14  of  the  Constitution  prohibits  is  “class legislation” and not “classification for purpose of legislation”. If the legislature reasonably classifies persons for legislative purposes so as to bring them under a well-defined class, it is not open to challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment that the law does  not  apply  to  other  persons.  The  test  of  permissible classification is twofold: (i) that the classification must be founded on  intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  grouped together from others who are left  out of the group, and (ii)  that differentia must have a rational connection to the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect  or logically complete.  A classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment...”

22) 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  parent/guardian to  take care of  the medical  needs of  his/her

disabled  child.   Even  when  he/she  has  paid  full  premium,  the

handicapped person is not able to receive any annuity only because the

parent/guardian of such handicapped person is still alive.  There may be

many other such situations.  However, it is for the Legislature to take

17

care  of  these  aspects  and  to  provide  suitable  provision  by  making

necessary amendments in Section 80DD of the Act.  In fact, the Chief

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has also felt that like other

police holders, Jeevan Aadhar policy should also be allowed to mature

after 55 years of age of the proposer and the annuity amount should be

disbursed through the LLCs or National Trust.

23) In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by

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.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

.............................................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 03, 2019.