Have law, history closed door on princely states' properties? SC to examine

Hindustan Times

2 days ago

If India's Constitution bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising from pre-Independence covenants, can erstwhile royal families like that of Jaipur ever reclaim their legacy properties? Or have time, law and history closed the door forever?
These questions came into focus on Monday as the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether covenants signed between princely states and the Government of India before 1950 are amenable to judicial review even as Article 363 of the Constitution expressly keeps such matters out of the courts' jurisdiction .
The legal challenge comes from the Jaipur royal family. Rajmata Padmini Devi, along with her daughter, Rajasthan deputy chief minister Diya Kumari, and grandson Maharaja Padmanabh Singh, moved the apex court against an April 17 ruling of the Rajasthan high court, which held that their civil suits, seeking possession and damages for prime Jaipur properties, were barred by Article 363.
A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih, while issuing notice on Monday, signalled willingness to engage with the nuanced constitutional debate, particularly the continuing relevance of Article 363 in the absence of its companion Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers and was repealed in 1972.
With its admission, the case now becomes a pivotal test of how India navigates the legacy of its integration of over 500 princely states post-Independence. If the court finds Article 363 no longer an iron curtain, it could open the floodgates of historical claims, not just from Jaipur, but across former royal families of India. On the other hand, a reaffirmation of the constitutional bar would strengthen the finality of India's break from the royal past.
Appearing for the Jaipur royals, senior advocate Harish Salve urged the Supreme Court to lift the constitutional veil and re-examine whether Article 363 still blocks judicial access in disputes involving princely covenants, particularly when the Union of India was not a party to the disputed agreement.
The court, however, had a pointed question for Salve: 'How will you come out of Article 363?'
Salve, assisted by senior counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, replied that Article 363 has multiple nuances and precedents. 'But the previous judgments did not answer whether Article 363 survives after deletion of Article 362. Both were part of the same package,' he added.
Salve further contended that the 1949 Covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India per se, but by five Rajasthan rulers, with India acting merely as a guarantor. That distinction, he said, was vital to determining whether the bar under Article 363 even applies.
The bench, however, expressed concern about the possible consequences of lifting this bar. 'If we agree with your submission, the entire city of Jaipur will be your property. All former rulers of Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur could reopen similar claims.'
But Salve said: 'Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I am only arguing on the right to adjudicate. Ownership was 100% prior to the covenant. Nobody has a right to assert title over what belongs to the State but I must be allowed to argue that in court.'
At this point, the court agreed to admit the matter for a hearing. The Rajasthan government's additional advocate general, Shiv Mangal Sharma, remained present during the hearing and accepted the notice on behalf of the state. He also undertook before the court that the issue will not be precipitated in so far as alienation of any property is concerned since the state respects the pendency of the matter before the highest court.
The challenge stems from a sweeping April 17 judgment by the Rajasthan high court, which threw out four suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic heritage properties, including the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace.
In a 50-page judgment, the high court ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from such covenants, citing the constitutional bar under Article 363. The court allowed the State's revision petitions and set aside lower court orders that had refused to reject the plaints under the civil procedure code (CPC).
'If law is clear and suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily to be rejected at the very threshold,' stated the judgment, citing apex court precedents.
The high court found that the claims were inextricably linked to the rights and obligations flowing from the 1949 covenant, under which the state was granted perpetual use of certain royal properties for 'official purposes'.
The royal family's suits had sought possession, injunctions, and mesne profits -- potentially running into crores, over several properties including those mentioned above. The royals claimed that the state had either abandoned their official use or was seeking to use them for commercial ventures like shopping malls or art galleries, violating the covenant's original purpose.
However, the Rajasthan government argued that the suits were barred under Article 363, as they arose directly from a covenant between the ruler of Jaipur and the Government of India.
The high court agreed. It held that even if the properties were in disrepair or misused, courts could not adjudicate such disputes due to the constitutional bar.
The Jaipur royals are now hoping the Supreme Court will re-evaluate the legal architecture surrounding Article 363, especially after the 1972 repeal of Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers.
During Monday's hearing, Salve suggested that the constitutional bar in Article 363 was designed to protect political agreements in the early years of the Republic but cannot be a permanent barrier in civil disputes, especially when one of the original articles has been removed.
The bench retorted: 'You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur should be yours.'
Still, the court agreed to hear the case and issued notice to the state.