The End Of Mandatory Probate: A Quiet But Transformative Shift In Indian Succession Law

Indian succession law has long struggled to balance substantive inheritance principles with procedural rules inherited from the colonial era. One of its most controversial features was the requirement of mandatory probate for certain wills, a requirement triggered not by dispute or complexity, but by where a will was executed and the religion of the testator. Probate, at its core, is a judicial process by which a court certifies the validity of a will and authorises an executor to administer the estate. While intended to ensure certainty, compulsory probate often produced the opposite result. Even uncontested estates were forced into lengthy court proceedings, leading to delay, expense, and avoidable litigation. That framework has now changed, with the enactment of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on 20 December 2025, Parliament has omitted Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This single omission removes the statutory compulsion of probate and marks a significant shift in how testamentary rights are enforced in India.

What Did Section 213 Do?

Before the amendment, Section 213 acted as a procedural gatekeeper. Wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis required probate if they were executed within, or related to immovable property located in, the original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Mumbai, Chennai, or Kolkata. Identical wills executed elsewhere in India did not.

The provision also applied unevenly across communities. Muslims and Indian Christians were entirely excluded from its operation. The result was a succession regime fragmented by geography and religion, with no coherent justification in contemporary legal reasoning.

In practice, mandatory probate entrenched litigation as a default process. Assets remained frozen while probate proceedings dragged on, even where no dispute existed. Rather than preventing challenges, probate often became a tool for delay and leverage by dissatisfied heirs. Costs mounted, timelines stretched, and estate value was frequently eroded in the process.

What Has Changed Now?

With the omission of Section 213 and related amendments to supporting provisions, probate is no longer a statutory precondition to enforcing rights under a will. A duly executed will may now be acted upon without prior judicial certification, unless probate is voluntarily sought.

This significantly simplifies succession in clear and undisputed cases. Executors are no longer compelled to approach courts as a matter of routine, enabling quicker transfer of assets and reducing legal costs and court fees. For many families, especially those with modest estates, this restores proportionality and practicality to inheritance administration.

Probate After 2025: Optional but Still Valuable

Importantly, probate itself has not been abolished. Courts retain full authority to grant probate where parties choose to seek it. What has changed is its character, from a mandatory hurdle to a strategic choice. In estates involving substantial immovable property, complex asset structures, blended families, or anticipated conflict, voluntary probate may still offer decisive advantages. Its strength lies in finality. A probated will carries a level of conclusiveness that informal administration cannot always provide.

Conclusion:

The amendment applies prospectively, with savings provisions protecting existing rights and ongoing proceedings. Pending probate disputes will continue to be adjudicated under the old framework.

More broadly, the reform reflects a conscious move away from colonial procedural rigidity toward a more citizen-centric approach. Mandatory probate once imposed by geography and religion is now history. Succession law offers greater flexibility, faster administration, and reduced litigation, yet probate remains a powerful tool where certainty is essential. Mandatory no more, it is still, in many cases, a prudent choice.