H. H. MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIWAJI RAO SCINDIA BAHADUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 15-12-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 29 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
i 
A 
B 
c 
H. H. MAHARAJADIDRAJA MADHAV RAO JIWAJI RAO 
SCINDIA BAHADUR & ORS. 
. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
December 15, 1970 
(M .. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J.C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT, 
V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, K. S. HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 366(22)-Scope of-Recognition 
of Rulers by President-Order by President "derecognising'' all Rulers-
Validity of order-Power, if political-If exercise of paramountcy rights. 
Constitution of India 1950--Article 291-Article if cremes an obliga-
tion to pay Privy Purse-Repudiation of obligation if act of State-"Charged 
on . ... the Consolidated Fund of India'', meaning of-Article if a provision 
"relating to" covenant within the n1eaning of Article 363. 
Constitution ,of India, 1950-Article 363-Exclusion of jurisdiction of 
Courts--Scope of exclusionary clauses-Determining the nieaning of arti-
D 
cles 366(22), 291, 362 and 363, if within bar of Article 363-"Dispute 
arising out of provision of the Constit11Uon relating to covenant", meaning 
-Article. if "recreation'' of para1nountcy. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 362-lf a provision "relating to" 
Covenent etc. within the -1neaning of Article 363. 
Constitution of India, 
1950--Articles 19(1) (/) and 31 and Article 
32-0rder of President under Article 36.§(22)-0rder of President under 
Article 366(22) "derecognising" Rulers-Repudiation of liability to pay 
Privy Purse and denial of rights and privileges-If violation of funda-
mental rights-Maintainabi/i.'y of petition-Privy Purse-If property. 
On the promulgation of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Prin-
cely States adjoining the Dominion of India merged with the Dominion of 
India. The instruments of merger provided for .the integration of the States 
and guaranteed to the Rulers the Privy Purse, succession according to law 
and custom to the gaddi of the State and personal rights, privileges, digni-
ties and titles. These instruments were concurred in and guaranteed by 
the Dominion of India. 
Later, the States integrated with the Union of 
India under the Constitution of India, 1950, the Rulers abandoning all 
authority in regard to their territories. Special provisions were enacted in 
the Constitution regardin¥ Privy Purses and the rights and privileges of the 
erstwhile Rulers. 
By article 291, the sums guaranteed by the Dominion of 
India to any Ruler as Privy Purae under any covenant or agreement was 
to be charge<l on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India and the 
sums so paid were to be exempt from all taices on income. Ry article 362 
the Parliament, the State Legislatures and the executive of the Union and 
the States were enjoined to have due regard to the guarantees and assurances 
under the covenants and agreements between 
the Governments of the 
Dominion of India and the heads df the former Indian States. Also, 
provisions were made in various statutes conferring on the "Rulers" certain 
privileges and benefits. 
By Art. 366(22) a "Ruler" was defin,,d t<> mean 
the prince, chief or other peraon by whom covenant and agreements 
were entered into and who "for the time being" was recognised by the 
President as the Ruler and included any person who "for the time being" 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971]3 S.C.R. 
was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler. Article 
A 
363 excluded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other courts 
"in respect of any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, ·agree-
ment, covenant etc." or in any dispute "in respect of any right accruing 
under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of 
the Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant" etc. 
On September 2, 1970, a Bill intituled the Constitution (Twenty Fourth 
:B 
Amendment) Bill, 1970, and providing that "Articles 291 and 362 of the 
Constitution and clause (22) of article 366 shall be omitted" was introdnced 
in the Lok Sabha. The Bill was declared passed. On September 5, 1970, 
the motion for, copsideration of the Bill did not obtain in the Rajya Sabha 
the requisite majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present 
and voting as required by Art. 368 of the. Constitution. The motion for intro-
duction of the Bill was declared lost. A few hours thereafter the Presi-
dent of lndia, purporting to exercise power under cl. (22) df Art. 366 
C 
of the Constitution signe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.