Wills will no longer require compulsory probate — a court process that formally confirms the document as genuine — in any part of India.The Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, which received the President’s assent on December 20, repeals a section of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which had forced families to approach a court before they could act on a will. This law also ends the practice in Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, where probate was mandatory for decades.The change marks a significant overhaul of India’s inheritance framework. It removes a rule that made the enforceability of wills depend on where they were executed and the community of the person who made them, and changes how and when courts intervene in succession disputes.Introducing the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Union Minister of Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, said that the omission of Section 213 of the 1925 law corrects a provision that was both geographically limited and community-specific, and which no longer aligned with contemporary succession practices.Probate is defined under Section 2(f) of the Indian Succession Act as “the copy of a will certified under the seal of a court of competent jurisdiction with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator.”When a will is sent for probate, the court examines whether it was signed and witnessed correctly, whether the person who made it was of sound mind and whether the document is authentic. If satisfied, the court issues a probate order, which gives the executor the legal authority to deal with the estate according to the will of the deceased person.This requirement sharply contrasts with how inheritance operates when a person dies without a will. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property devolves on legal heirs without any requirement of probate or prior court validation. In effect, a person who did not leave a will could pass property more easily than one who did, at least in the former British presidencies of Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata under the colonial-era law.Story continues below this adUnder Section 213, this judicial validation was mandatory in certain cases. “No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court… unless a Court… has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will”, the provision stated.Explained | IndiGo flight cancellations: Your rights when a flight is cancelled, what consumer courts have ruledCourts consistently treated this as a threshold, particularly for wills linked to the original civil jurisdictions of the Bombay, Madras and Calcutta High Courts. Families could not rely on a will, even an uncontested one, unless a probate court first validated it. In effect, probate functioned as a pre-emptive filter, forcing scrutiny at the planning stage, before property or assets were distributed.Why did Section 213 apply only to certain wills?The compulsory nature of probate was not uniformly applicable across the country. Its scope was determined by a combined reading of Sections 57 and 213 of the Act.Section 57 specified that certain provisions of the Act would apply to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains within the territories that were historically under the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, or within the original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay. It also extended to wills executed outside those territories, if they related to immovable property situated within them.Story continues below this adSection 213 then made probate compulsory only for this defined class of wills. Muslims and Christians were expressly excluded. Parsis were brought within the requirement only later, and only for wills executed within the same presidency towns.This framework meant that the enforceability of a will depended not only on its contents, but on who made it and where it was made or applied. The result was an uneven succession framework. Two families with identical assets and disputes could face entirely different procedural hurdles based solely on their religion or city. Courts acknowledged this anomaly over the years, even while applying the provision.Also in Explained Law | Delhi HC bans unauthorised use of Madhavan’s likeness: How personality rights evolved in IndiaThe Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the 2025 Bill explicitly described that the omission of Section 213 was meant to “attain uniformity” in succession law, as the provision was “discriminatory”. By deleting the provision altogether, Parliament has removed a distinction that had come to be seen as increasingly indefensible in the legal system.What changes now?The consequences are straightforward. Executors and beneficiaries can now rely on a will without first obtaining probate, even in Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. Courts are no longer the compulsory entry point for enforcing testamentary rights. In uncontested cases, this is expected to reduce time, cost and procedural burden.Story continues below this adHowever, the reform does not render the concept of probate irrelevant. It only changes probate from being mandatory to being optional.Crucially, institutions may still insist on probate in practice. Banks, housing societies and registrars are not courts, and they operate as risk managers. A probated will offer them insulation against future claims. Without it, they may fear being drawn into litigation if rival heirs emerge later. As a result, the absence of a statutory mandate may not automatically translate into frictionless transactions.