Latest news with #Salve
United News of India
3 days ago
- General
- United News of India
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
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Jaipur royals want state to return 145-yr-old Town Hall
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether a pre-Constitution covenant facilitating merger of Jaipur princely state with the Dominion of India could decide the ownership claim of the erstwhile royal family over the 145-year-old Sawai Man Singh Town Hall, or Old Vidhan Sabha, now proposed to be converted into a heritage museum. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It will also examine whether courts, including the SC, was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution from entertaining any dispute arising from treaties and covenants entered between an erstwhile ruler of an Indian state and to which the govt of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor govts was a party. Rajasthan govt's Oct 2022 decision to convert the building, used as state assembly from 1952 till the 1990s, into a heritage museum alarmed erstwhile royal family members who believe it is an attempt to erase their ownership over the property, which according to them was acknowledged in the March 1949 covenant signed between the govt of India and the United States of Rajasthan. Under the 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 the Dominion of India. Under the covenant, the title of private properties of the princely state rulers would continue to vest in them. Appearing for Jaipur's erstwhile royal family, senior advocates Harish Salve and Vibha D Makhija said because of Article 363 — which bars courts, including the SC, from entertaining disputes arising from treaties or covenants — titles of erstwhile royal family members over private properties acknowledged by the covenant could not be completely extinguished. This constitutional provision could be given a restricted meaning to allow filing of civil suits to get back possession of properties admittedly belonging to royal families under the covenant, Salve said. 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 lead to heirs of erstwhile princely states to lay claim over huge tracts of land and villages owned by them earlier. But Salve said it pertained to only a few properties mentioned in the covenant and was not intended for widening 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 high court and not precipitate the issue.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Have law, history closed door on princely states' properties? SC to examine
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.
NDTV
4 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Can Courts Interfere In Disputes Over Properties Of Ex Princely States? Top Court To Examine
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars courts from hearing disputes relating to properties of erstwhile princely states mentioned under the pre-constitutional covenants. Article 363 bars the interference of courts in any disputes which may arise from certain treaties, agreements, covenants, sanad, engagements, etc., executed between a princely state and the Government of India. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih, therefore, issued notice on a plea filed by members of Jaipur's royal family including Rajmata Padmini Devi, deputy chief minister Diya Kumari and Sawai Padmanabh Singh over the possession of the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha) and other properties situated in the walled city. They have challenged the decision of Rajasthan High Court, which held that suits seeking possession of the Town Hall, mentioned in the covenant between the erstwhile princely state and the Union of India, couldn't be entertained by civil courts under Article 363 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the royal family members, contended that the covenant in question was entered into by five princes whereas the Government of India was only a guarantor to ensure that the terms were fulfilled. He pointed out that this aspect was not argued in the proceedings before the high court, which resulted in an impugned judgement of April 17. Justice Mishra, however, asked Salve if the Government of India was not a party, how did the merger with the Union of India happen. Mr Salve clarified that the merger occurred after the covenant, with the onset of Article 1 of the Constitution. Justice Mishra said going by the arguments of Mr Salve, it would mean that if the Union of India was not a party to the covenant and, therefore, Article 363 would not apply then the situation would essentially lead to every other ruler filing a suit and asking for their property to be returned. Mr Salve said filling a suit and having a right (over the property) were two different things. He clarified that it was not the case of the petitioners to claim ownership over properties that were constitutionally vested with the state in line with the covenant, irrespective of Article 363. "Nobody has the right to what is vested with the finished, it's over. And if I was to ever question the inventory, it would be barred with or without 363 and I'd make that good." Justice Mishra, who was not convinced by Mr Salve's arguments, said, "Tomorrow, you will say the entire Jaipur is yours. This way every princely state will come forward and declare independence." The bench agreed to hear the matter in detail and issued notice to Rajasthan government noting two more suits were likely to be filed in the matter. Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, appearing for Rajasthan government, said given the longevity of the matter, the state would not precipitate the issue and maintain status quo on the disputed properties. The bench posted matter after eight weeks as it recorded Sharma's statement. The matter related to the long-standing multi-property dispute between the former royal family of Jaipur and the state government. The disputed properties – town hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk – are currently in the government's possession. The members of royal family had initially filed four suits before the civil court for mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of mesne profit for Town Hall. It was contended that the Town Hall was in official use only till 2001, and thereafter a new Vidhan Sabha building was constructed and it was not put to official use. Similar claims were raised for other properties, currently valued at thousands of crores. On April 17, the high court rejected the claims of the erstwhile royal family of Jaipur that town hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk — all of which are situated in walled city are "government properties". It also decreed that no civil court could entertain any claims related to the present case. The order allowed four revision petitions filed by the state government against a subordinate court's order.
Time of India
24-04-2025
- Time of India
Following latest extortion case, MCOCA invoked against Mukesh Salve & gang in Sambhajinagar
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Cracking down on gangs of active criminals involved in body and property offences, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar city police invoked provisions of the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against 27-year-old Mukundwadi resident Mukesh, alias Mukya Mahendra Salve, and his associates for allegedly running an extortion racket and being involved in a series of crimes. Police commissioner Pravin Pawar said in the long list of crimes, this gang, led by Salve, recently assaulted a hotelier, his son, and nephew for not paying extortion money. Mukundwadi inspector Shivaji Taware said a complaint was registered at Mukundwadi police station on March 24 against an incident that occurred around 10 pm on Feb 23. The complainant and his family members were seated in the open space of their hotel when Salve, along with accomplices — identified as Vikki (alias Helmet Sonkamble), Kishor Shinde, Umesh Gawli, Balaji Piwal, Sanket Lamdande, Rohit Mhaskey, Ajay (alias Ajya Bhajya Adamane), and Sundar (alias Sundraya Kamble) — reached the spot armed with wooden sticks and sickles. The gang allegedly demanded a monthly payment of Rs 2,000 to allow the complainant to operate a scrap shop on his own premises. When the complainant refused, the accused brutally assaulted him, his son, and nephew. They also vandalised a scooter, looted Rs 10,000 from a drawer, and issued death threats before fleeing the spot. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo Investigators revealed that Vikki was previously detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA) in 2018, 2021, and 2023, but continued to be involved in criminal activities with his gang. The police stated that the group operated as a well-organised criminal syndicate. Police commissioner Pravin Pawar on Wednesday granted prior approval to invoke sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOCA against Salve and his gang and tasked assistant commissioner of police (city division) Sampat Shinde with leading the investigation.
