COL. HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 15-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

!6 
COL. HIS HIGHNESS RiUA SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR 
BANSBAHADUR 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB & ORS. 
October 15, 1971 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND 
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J 
Income-tax Act, 1922-Ruler of erstwhile princely state-If liable to 
tax itJ. resoect of versonal income earned in British India. 
Princely State-Ruler-Status in International law. 
The appellant, who was the ruler of an erstwhile princely state, chal-
lenged the assessments made against him for the assessment years 1946-47 
and 1947-48 in respect of his personal income earned in British India, 
on the ground that he being a Ruler was immune from taxation on every 
source of income. 
On the question whether the appellant could claim 
immunity from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in respect of 
the income earned in British India, 
HELD : The appellant was not entitled to any immunity and, there-
fore was Hable to tax. 
(a) Jn International law the head of a State representing the State as 
such enjoys certain extra territorial privileges in other States. 
Some of 
these privileges and immunities are political and are generally the subject 
of executive and administrative instructions. 
There are others in rel".ltion 
to the applicability of the municipal laws, the immunity from which are 
either recognised by the common law and which courts wilI not enforce, 
as in England, or are dealt with by those laws themselves by affording the 
necessary exemption; yet others are regulated by treaties and international 
conventions. 
Whatever might be the various aspects of the privileges and immunities 
enjoyed by the Heads of State, the rulers of the erstwhile princely states 
did not enjoy the same or similar privileges as those of the Heads of States 
recognised as members of the family of Nations in International law. From 
the very nature of these princely states it was clear that they were subject 
to the sovereignty and protection of the British Crown. While their re-
lations with the Crown. were governed by treaties, though initially on terms 
of equality, when the British Crown in India became paramount, the re-
lationship between it and the rulers became unequal with the result that 
these treaties became subject to the reservation that they could be dis-
regarded where the interests of the British Empire or those of the subjects 
of the princely states were involved. 
The status of these States as inter· 
national personalities was negatived by the British Government even to~ 
wards the end of the 19th century and it :had been maintained that the 
principles of International law had no bearing upon the relations between 
the Government of India as representing the Queen Empress on the one 
hand and the native states under the suzerainty of Her Majesty on the 
other. Again, though the status of these rulers in England was recognised 
as being on par with other rulers in the matter of personal immunity from 
legal proceedings in so far as British India was concerned, these were the 
subject matter of legislation under which ·the ruling princes in India, not-
withstanding that they were not recognised as international personalities. 
were accorded this immunity. Therefore, any exemption the Rulers could 
clalm had to be under the relevant taxing acts. There is no such exemp-
tion under the Income-tax Act. Besides, the fact that the income of the 
A 
B 
,. 
c 
D 
) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
// 
A 
B 
c 
H. s. BARAR v. C.I.T. (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 
17 
rulers derived from Central Government securities was specifically exemp!-
ed by s. 60 implied that the rulers were not exempted from other provi-
sions of law. The provisions in certain statut~s spec1fi.cally makmg ev~ry 
Ruler of an fodian State liable to tax only rmhtate agamst the assumptton 
of immunity from taxation of the property of the Rulers; at any rate such 
provisions might hav•' been ex abundant ceute/a. f21D-22B. 240]. 
H. H. Maharaiadhiraia Madhav Rao Jivaii Rao Bahadur of Gll'alior 
etc. v. Union of llldia, [,1971] I S.C.C. 85, referred to. 
(b) Furthe·r it is now concluded by a decision of this c;ourt in Cont: 
missioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. H. E. H. Mir Osm~n Ah 
Bahadur, [19661 2 S.C.R. 296 that the ruler of a princely state did. not 
acquire international personality and so could. not rely upon lntcrnat1onal 
law for claiming immunity from taxation of his personal properties. [250] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 34 and 
35 of 1969.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.