Retrospective Upgradation of Surviving Spouse in Order of Succession is Constitutionally Valid and Not Manifestly Arbitrary.

The Petitioners challenged the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023.

Under the original 2012 Act, the order of legal succession placed the surviving spouse fourth, behind descendants, ascendants (parents), and siblings.

The 2022/2023 Amendments elevated the surviving spouse to the second position, immediately after descendants and ahead of parents.

Petitioner Gracias claimed the estate of his brother who died intestate in 2022, arguing that his right had vested prior to the 2023 Amendment.

Petitioners Chanekar (parents of a deceased son) challenged the amendment because it resulted in their daughter-in-law (surviving spouse) excluding them from succession.

The 2023 Amendment was given retrospective effect from 21/12/2016, and an inventory court had already dismissed Petitioner Gracias's inheritance claim based on this retroactivity.

1. Whether the alteration of the order of succession, placing the surviving spouse above ascendants and siblings, is 'manifestly arbitrary' and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the retrospective application of the Amendment Acts (deemed to have come into force on 21/12/2016) unconstitutionally divests heirs of 'vested' or 'crystallized' rights.

3. Whether the amendment to Section 83, which alters the 'legitime' (forced share) of the spouse to the entire inheritance in the absence of descendants, violates individual autonomy.

The court applied the "manifest arbitrariness" test established in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which permits striking down legislation that is capricious, irrational, or lacks an adequate determining principle.

It relied on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes as articulated in R.K. Garg v. Union of India.

Regarding retroactivity, the court applied the principle from Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective law without a rational nexus to the object.

The legislature's sovereign power to make retrospective laws to cure defects or serve public interest as held in State Bank’s Staff Union v. Union of India.

The court also interpreted the role of an "Explanation" in a statute as defined in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman.

The court found the change in the order of succession was not "manifestly arbitrary" because the legislature intended to "rectify" the order to protect the surviving spouse.

By comparing the Goa Act with the Hindu Succession Act and Indian Succession Act—where spouses generally take precedence or share equally with immediate kin—the court held that prioritizing the marital tie over ascendants is a rational policy choice and not tyrannical.

On retroactivity, the court held that while inheritance "transmits" at death under Section 13, it only "crystallizes" upon the finality of partition or inventory proceedings.

The 2023 Act's Explanation specifically protected "crystallized rights" (those finalized before the 2023 enactment) while applying the new order to "pending" cases.

The court reasoned that since the legislature removed the basis of the old rights for pending matters while saving completed transactions, the retroactivity was a valid exercise of legislative power to advance social policy.

(1) the new order of succession is rational and serves a legitimate state interest in protecting spouses; (2) the retrospective effect does not violate Article 14 as it expressly saves "crystallized" rights and only impacts pending litigation where shares were not yet legally finalized; and (3) the autonomy of pre-nuptial agreements found in the Civil Code is not absolute and must yield to the legislature's power to define the law of intestate succession.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.