Jaipur royal family wants state to return 140-year-old Town Hall: SC to decide whether claim justified as per 1949 merger covenant
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether a pre-Constitution Covenant facilitating merger of Jaipur princely state with Dominion of India decide the ownership right of the royal family over 145-year-old Sawai Man Singh Town Hall, or Old Vidhan Sabha now proposed to be converted into a Heritage Museum?
Or are the jurisdiction of the courts, including the SC, is ousted under Article 363 of the Constitution from entertaining any dispute arising from treaties and Covenants entered between any ruler of an Indian state and to which the government of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor governments was a party.
The state's Oct 2022 decision to convert the building, used as state assembly from 1952 till the 1990s, as heritage museum alarmed the royal family members of the attempt to erase their ownership over the property, which according to them was acknowledged in the March 1949 Covenant signed between government of India and United states of Rajasthan.
Under the agreed terms of the Covenant, the princely states of Banswara, Bikaner, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, Jodhpur, Kishangarh, Kota, Mewar, Pratapgarh, Shahpur and Tonk merged with Dominion of India.
Under the Covenant, the title of the private properties of the princely state rulers would continue to vest in them.
For the Jaipur royal family, senior advocates Harish Salve and Vibha D Makhija said Article 363 - which bars the jurisdiction of the courts, including that of the SC - to entertain any dispute arising from treaty or Covenant needs to be given a restrictive meaning as it cannot extinguish titles of royal families over their private properties.
A partial working day bench comprising Justices Prashant K Mishra and A G Masih was initially reluctant to entertain the petition as it apprehended that this would enable the heirs of erstwhile rulers of princely states to lay claim over huge tracts of land and villages owned by them earlier. But Salve said it pertains to only a few properties mentioned in the Covenant and not for widening the title rights over villages.
When the bench issued notice to the Rajasthan govt, its additional advocate general Shiv M Sharma and advocate Kartikeya informed the court that it would honour the pendency of the case before the HC and not precipitate the issue.
The state govt's Oct 2022 decision to convert the Town Hall into a heritage museum had forced the royal family members to file a civil suit seeking possession of the property. Though the suit was entertained, the trial court refused to stay the proposed conversion into a museum.
The state moved the HC questioning maintainability of the suit in the face of clear bar under Article 363. The royal family members moved HC for interim injunction against the museum. The HC rejected the plea for status quo. When they challenged the HC order, the SC too refused to stay on the proposed museum but ordered an expeditious decision on the suit. On Apr 17 this year, the HC on state's appeal ruled that the royal family members' suit against the state under the Covenant is barred under Article 363.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Opposition demands details of Supreme Court findings on Justice Varma
Some Opposition parties are urging the government to share with them the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel against high court judge Yashwant Varma in the "cash seizure" case as the ruling side is seeking multi-party support for its push for bringing an impeachment motion against the judge. The more damning the findings, the more inclined the Opposition would be to back the proposed impeachment move, said people familiar with the matter, even as leaders of Opposition parties including the Congress were still firming up their formal response. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju informally reached out to at least two Congress MPs, and some regional parties, seeking support for the motion. "I can't say what is going on between the government and Opposition on the impeachment issue. But, according to the rules, the Members of Parliament, not the government, can move an impeachment motion against a judge with the required number of signatures for admission. So, for us MPs, to sign the proposed impeachment motion, we would require knowing what exactly the case for impeachment against justice Varma is," said Congress' Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha, a senior advocate. "So, we expect the government side to share with the Opposition the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel that looked into the complaints against justice Varma." Tankha had earlier written to the Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankar, urging him to take steps to ensure MPs' get access to the panel's findings. Some sections in the Opposition nurse a grudge against the government earlier opposing and blocking the Opposition push for impeachment of the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav. There is yet another section which views the case against justice Varma with a sense of suspicion and as part of a crafty manoeuvre. Yet, many in the Opposition feel that the prospect of the ruling side unveiling, formally or informally, critical findings of corruption by the Supreme Court-appointed panel against justice Varma, and the fact that the CJI had forwarded that findings to the government for considering action against the judge, would guide the Opposition's response. Live Events "Corruption in the judiciary is a matter of concern for all citizens and political parties. It cannot be tolerated, and strong measures must be taken to root it out. At the same time, the independence of the judiciary is crucial and the judiciary must remain free from political influence," said D Raja of the CPI, which has two MPs in both Houses. "As far as the impeachment motion is concerned, the government should consult with Opposition parties. It should not assume that it can proceed unilaterally on such important matters."
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
HMT land: Govt. orders suspension of IFoS officer Gokul
The State government has suspended Additional Principal Conservator of Forests R. Gokul in connection with a case filed in the Supreme Court seeking permission to denotify 443 acres of HMT forest land. The suspension order states that the IFoS officer without obtaining the approval of the then Minister in-charge or sanction from the State Cabinet, filed an interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court seeking permission for denotification of lands granted to HMT measuring 443 acres 6 guntas at Peenya Jalahalli Plantation. Following this the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department issued preliminary notices to former IAS officer Sandeep Dave, then Additional Chief Secretary in the department, former IFoS officer Vijay Kumar Gogi, then Principal Secretary in the department, IFoS officer Smitha Bijjur, then Principal Secretary in the department, and Mr. Gokul, then Chief Conservator of Forests and Litigation Conducting officer, in the said IA. 'The replies received by the said officers have been examined by the department and referred along with the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to examine and initiate necessary action,' stated the order. It further stated that after the issue of preliminary notice by the department, Mr. Gokul wrote to the CBI without prior intimation or obtaining permission of the State government for seeking protection with reference to Belekeri port iron ore theft cases and also to investigate the reasons for issuing a notice and defaming through news articles and to provide him adequate protection. The State government then examined the necessary files and records in the said matter and sought a report on the denotification of lands granted to HMT under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It also investigated if there are any lapses and any irregularities committed by the officers in the said matter. 'In violation of Rule 17 of A11 India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the State government is prima facie satisfied that it is necessary to place R. Gokul, IFoS under suspension with immediate effect, pending inquiry,' the order stated. It also directed that the officer during the period of suspension to not leave the headquarters without the written permission of the State government.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump signs order to double steel, aluminium import tariffs to 50%
New Delhi: A 50% tariff on steel and aluminium imports into the United States went into effect on Wednesday, doubling the previous rate as President Donald Trump cited national security concerns for the dramatic escalation in trade protections. The new tariff rates, increased from an earlier 25% rate, were announced by Trump in a statement on Tuesday. The president claimed legal authority to impose the tariffs through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to address national security risks arising from imports. 'In my judgement, the increased tariffs will more effectively counter foreign countries that continue to offload low-priced, excess steel and aluminium in the United States market and thereby undercut the competitiveness of the United States steel and aluminium industries,' read Trump's statement released by the White House. Trump said the earlier 25% tariff rates, first announced in February and implemented on March 12, had helped America's steel industry but had not enabled companies to maintain the capacity needed to meet national defence needs. 'I have determined that increasing the previously imposed tariffs will provide greater support to these industries and reduce or eliminate the national security threat posed by imports of steel and aluminium articles and their derivative articles,' Trump said. The tariff increase comes amid broader trade disputes at the World Trade Organisation. Several countries, including India, have formally challenged the US measures, characterising them as 'safeguard measures' that violate WTO rules and threaten retaliatory action. In May, India formally notified the WTO that it viewed America's tariffs on steel and aluminium as safeguard measures and indicated it could suspend 'concessions and other obligations' given to the US and that it retains the right to enforce retaliatory measures. On May 22, America rejected India's characterisation of the tariffs as safeguard measures and refused to engage in talks on the matter. The introduction of tariffs has proven controversial within the US. The America Iron and Steel Institute, an industry group, has welcomed the increased tariffs as a necessary measure to protect domestic producers from cheaper foreign competition. However, manufacturers using steel as input for production have publicly raised concerns that more expensive steel will impact competitiveness across other domestic industries. For India specifically, the consequences are direct and substantial. According to the Global Trade Research Institute (GTRI), a New Delhi-based research group, India exported $4.56 billion worth of iron, steel, and aluminium products to the US in FY2025, with key categories including $587.5 million in iron and steel, $3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel, and $860 million in aluminium and related articles. 'These exports are now exposed to sharply higher US tariffs, threatening the profitability of Indian producers and exporters,' the GTRI said in a brief.
