Why Decision To Discontinue Registered Post Service A Cause For Concern For All Of Us ?

Dormaan Jamshid Dalal

7 Aug 2025 7:33 PM IST

  • Why Decision To Discontinue Registered Post Service A Cause For Concern For All Of Us ?

    In a surprising move, the Department of Posts, issued a directive on 2nd July 2025 merging Registered Post with Speed Post services thereby discontinuing the infamous “Registered Post Service” for good from 1st September 2025. Reports seem to suggest that the reason for taking this executive action was due to decline in the use of Registered Post Services, which had dropped by 25%...

    In a surprising move, the Department of Posts, issued a directive on 2nd July 2025 merging Registered Post with Speed Post services thereby discontinuing the infamous “Registered Post Service” for good from 1st September 2025. Reports seem to suggest that the reason for taking this executive action was due to decline in the use of Registered Post Services, which had dropped by 25% in registered mail volume from 244.4 million in 2011-2012 to 184.6 million from 2019-2020 due to the increased use of digital services and courier services.

    This executive action appears to have statutory backing. Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 2023 gives the power to the Central Government to delegate virtually all power other than the rule making power to the Director General of Postal Services. Rule 4 of the Post Office Rules, 2024 further gives the Director General the power to discontinue certain services. The decision to abruptly discontinue Registered Post Services, is not well thought out, as it has the effect of nullifying those provisions of law that provide for “deemed service” of letters/communications.

    1. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

    Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (“General Clauses Act”) simply put, states that if a letter is sent by Registered Post to a person on the correct address, service is “deemed to be effected”.

    The Section, which acts as a safety net, states that where any Central Act or Regulation authorizes or requires any document to be served by post then services “shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document” unless the contrary is proved.

    The presumption under Section 27 has been recognized by the Supreme Court in several decisions delivered both in the twentieth century and twenty-first century. The Court in M/s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (Madan and Co”) relied on the presumption under Section 27 to come to its decision, as did the Court in Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v. Atamaram Sungomal Poshani (“Gujarat Electricity Board”), in which case, the letter under registered cover was “returned-back” with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the letter.

    Post 2000, the Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another, (“Alavi Haji”) while dealing with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stated that when a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer of the cheque, “it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice” unless the contrary is proved by the addressee. The Court also quoted Section 114 of the now repealed Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Old Evidence Act”) and particularly Illustration (f) to conclude that there is no “material difference” between Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Old Evidence Act. Section 114 and the illustration reads as under:

    114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. –– The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

    Illustrations

    But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it: ––

    as to illustration (f) –– the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances;”

    In Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti, the Supreme Court, in 2011, while once again recognizing the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and 114 of the old Evidence Act held that the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of “impeccable character”, thereby raising the threshold of the countering the presumption. Ironically, Section 114 and the corresponding illustration has been bodily lifted from the old Evidence Act and been incorporated into Section 119 of the new Evidence Act- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhibiyam, 2023 (“BSA”) barring certain cosmetic changes and grammatical variations.

    Exactly two weeks after the decision of the Department of Posts, the Supreme Court on 16th July 2025 once again reiterated the principle of “deemed service” in an unreported decision viz. Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Thr. LR. v. Arvind Kumar. Its previous decisions in Madan and Co, Gujarat Electricity Board and Alavi Haji were all referred to.

    2. Other Statutory Provisions of Union Acts

    But it's not just the nullification of the presumption in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that is concerning. What about the good old Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”)? Section 148A, which gives a “Right to lodge a caveat”, states in sub-section 2 that where a caveat is lodged, the person by whom the caveat has been lodged “shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post acknowledgment due” on the opposite party/parties. Does “shall” in this sub-section now have to now be read as “may” or “registered post” as “speed post”? On the other hand, Order V Rule 9 (3) of CPC does permit service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due, speed post, courier or electronic services unlike Section 148A. Incidentally, the proviso to Order V Rule 9(5) reiterates the presumption of service of summons if sent by registered post acknowledgment due. Even Section 65 of the new criminal procedure code, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for deemed service of summons on corporate bodies, firms and societies.

    3. Let's not forget the State Acts

    Lastly, what about the States who have corresponding State General Clauses Acts to back their own State Legislations. Take for instance Maharashtra's General Clauses Act viz. The Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904. Section 28 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act corresponds to Section 27 of the Union General Clauses Act. Wouldn't this decision of the Department of Posts nullify corresponding sections of similar State enactments? But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Each state has their own legislations on various subjects that they legislate upon. Several enactments mandate service by registered post acknowledgment due. A classic example would be Section 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in Chapter VIII titled, “Summary Disposal of Certain Applications”. Section 43 (3)(a) and (b) also contain presumption of service of summons by Registered Post. Would a section such as this not get nullified as well? No one knows if the States have been taken into confidence before taking such a decision by the Department of Posts.

    This is not to suggest that we don't need to move with the times; of course we do. But while doing so, care should be taken to anticipate the consequences of this change. Sudden changes have unintended consequences. Perhaps if this decision of the Department of Posts was done in a gradual and phase-wise manner, it would have given the opportunity to law makers to make necessary changes/amendments to various statutory provisions including and especially Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and the corresponding state enactments. One only hopes that law makers and stake holders take notice of this predicament.

    The author is a practicing Advocate at the Bombay High Court and an Arbitrator. Views are personal.


    Next Story