SC agrees to hear Jaipur Royals' plea on historic covenants
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Rajmata Padmini Devi, Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister Diya Kumari, and Maharaja Sawai Padmanabh Singh of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family, challenging the constitutional bar under Article 363 over adjudication of disputes stemming from pre-Independence covenants between princely states and the Government of India.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih on Monday signaled readiness to delve into the nuanced constitutional debate surrounding the continuing applicability of Article 363 especially after the repeal of its companion provision, Article 362, in 1972.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, assisted by Senior Counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, contended that the 1949 covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India (GoI), but among five Rajasthan rulers, with the Centre acting merely as a guarantor.
Hence, Article 363, which bars courts from entertaining disputes arising from covenants, should not apply.
Salve invoked Articles 363 and 366, arguing that the ownership of the disputed properties existed prior to the covenant, and that the Constitution must now permit courts to re-examine the legal rights surrounding such properties.
Justice Mishra, however, asked pointedly, 'Without the Government of India being a party, how did you merge with the Union of India?' He further questioned the broader implications: 'If your argument is accepted, then the entire state of Rajasthan would be governed by the King.
"Will all princely states be free to claim their properties?' the Court asked.
Salve responded that allowing adjudication was not tantamount to conceding ownership: 'Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I'm only arguing on the right to be heard in court.'
The petition challenges the April 17 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed four civil suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic Jaipur properties including Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace.
The High Court had ruled that these suits were barred by Article 363, which prohibits court jurisdiction over disputes related to pre-Constitution covenants.
The court accepted the State's revision pleas and rejected the royals' claims under the Civil Procedure Code.
The apex court bench observed that the matter raises complex constitutional questions: 'You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur could be yours.'
The bench issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after eight weeks.
Salve requested interim relief, seeking to preserve the status quo.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shiv Mangal Sharma, appearing for the Rajasthan government, accepted the notice and assured the court that no precipitative steps would be taken regarding the disputed properties.
This case may become a watershed moment in determining whether India's constitutional bar on royal covenants still holds, or whether legal avenues can reopen for former rulers seeking possession or compensation over their ancestral properties.
The bench noted, this legal challenge could either reaffirm the constitutional closure of the princely era, or rekindle claims from royal families across the country, testing the delicate balance between historical integration and legal continuity in the Republic of India.
UNI SNG RN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
40 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Ahead of Bihar polls Tejashwi seeks fresh quota laws; writes to Nitish
The suggestion of the RJD leader, who was the deputy CM when reservations were hiked to 75 per cent, is that the fresh legislations be immediately sent to the Centre for being placed in the ninth schedule of the Constitution.
News18
43 minutes ago
- News18
Hanuman Chalisa At Mosque: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Two On ‘Presumption Of Innocence'
Last Updated: The court reaffirmed the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive, stressing the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty The Allahabad High Court on June 3, 2025, granted bail to two individuals accused of attempting to incite communal disharmony by allegedly reciting Hanuman Chalisa near a mosque in Meerut. The court reaffirmed the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive, stressing the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh, while hearing the bail plea of Sachin Sirohi and Sanjay Samarval, observed that continued custody is not justified solely based on the seriousness of the allegations. 'The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive," the judge noted, drawing from the Supreme Court's ruling in Vinod Bhandari v. State of MP. The duo had approached the court for relief in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 196, and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Sadar Bazar police station, Meerut. According to the prosecution, the applicants, along with others, entered a religious site belonging to the Muslim community and forcibly recited Hanuman Chalisa, allegedly aiming to provoke enmity between religious groups. Opposing the bail plea, the Additional Government advocate and counsel for the aggrieved parties contended that the accused acted deliberately to disturb communal harmony. The seriousness of the act, they argued, warranted denial of bail. However, counsel for the applicants maintained that the allegations were baseless and politically motivated. They argued that there was no credible evidence against their clients and that the criminal history referred to had been adequately explained in the affidavit submitted with the bail application. Weighing both sides, the court ruled that, without delving into the merits of the case at this stage, the applicants had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted with strict conditions. These included a bar on tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and a requirement for regular court appearances. The order further makes it clear that the applicants must refrain from making any inducements or threats to individuals acquainted with the case, and any breach would give the trial court liberty to cancel their bail. First Published: June 05, 2025, 14:54 IST
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's travel ban: Who is impacted? List of countries facing US action from June 9
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday revived one of the previous policies of his first term, announcing that citizens from 12 countries would be barred from entering the United States, with additional restrictions imposed on travellers from seven others, most of which are mainly Muslim nations. In a video shared on social media, Trump linked the newly announced travel ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, arguing that it highlighted the risks posed by individuals who overstay their visas. The suspect in the attack, however, is from Egypt — a country not included on Trump's restricted list — and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, had overstayed a tourist visa. Trump justified the ban by claiming that certain countries have 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have consistently refused to repatriate their citizens. His decision heavily draws on an annual report by Homeland Security, which tracks visa overstays among tourists, business travellers, and students entering by air or sea, focusing on nations with particularly high overstay rates. 'We don't want them,' Trump said. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was reworked amid legal challenges until the Supreme Court upheld a version in 2018. The ban impacted various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, as well as North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump has defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was intended to protect the country and was not based on anti-Muslim bias. However, Trump had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. Here are the 12 countries placed under the ban and the seven placed under travel restrictions: Banned from US travel: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Restricted to US travel: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The proclamation signed by Donald Trump will come into force on 9 June 2025, at 12:01 AM EDT, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. The travel restrictions apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who: Are outside the United States as of 9 June, and Do not possess a valid visa on that date. However, the proclamation clarifies that any immigration or non-immigrant visa issued before 9 June will remain valid and will not be revoked under this order. Some, but not all, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Trump's first term. The proclamation restricts entry for immigrants and those on specific temporary visas—B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas—from the following countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. 1. Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) of the US. 2. Dual nationals travelling on a passport from a non-restricted country. 3. Diplomats with valid non-immigrant visas. 4. Athletes and their immediate relatives attend events like the Olympics or other major sports competitions. Immediate family immigrant visas. Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). Special Immigrant Visas for U.S. government employees. Immigrant visas for persecuted ethnic and religious minorities from Iran. The ban includes exceptions for Afghans holding Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), typically granted to those who worked closely with the US government during the two-decade war in Afghanistan. It is to be further noted that Afghanistan was among the top sources of resettled refugees, with approximately 14,000 arrivals in the 12 months leading up to September 2024. It's a stark contrast to Trump's earlier outlook— he had suspended refugee resettlement on his very first day in office during his previous term. 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger, and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85 per cent of its capital, Port-au-Prince, as reported by AP. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Trump wrote. The Iranian government has yet to respond to its inclusion on the list. The Trump administration labelled Iran a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except those already holding visas or entering the US on special visas granted to minorities facing persecution. The travel ban stems from an executive order issued by Trump on 20 January, directing the Departments of State, Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to prepare a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and assess whether entry from certain countries posed a national security threat. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, as reported by The Associated Press. Other Middle Eastern countries on the list—Libya, Sudan, and Yemen—are all engulfed in ongoing civil conflicts with territories controlled by rival factions. Sudan is currently experiencing active warfare, Yemen's conflict remains largely stalemated and Libya's armed factions continue to clash. (With inputs from Associated Press)
