KUNWAR SHRI VIR RAJENDRA SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 30-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Kt.JNWAR SHRI VIR RAJENDRA SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
September 30, 1969 
(S. M. SIKRl, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. RAY AND 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Am. 363 and 366(22)-Recognllion as 
Ruler of Indian State by President of India between two rival c/illmants-
lf also recognition of right to private property. 
The Dbolpur State was one of the States which merged to form. the 
United States of Rajasthan. Article XII of the Covenant entered mto 
among tho Rulers of the several States provided that the Ruler of each 
covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoy-
ment of all private properties belonging to him, and Art. XIV provided, 
that Succession according to law ·and custom, to the gaddi of such covenan-
ting State, and to the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the 
Ruler were guaranteed. 
On the death of the last Ruler of Dholpur in 1954 without any male 
issue, a. controverrsy, as to who was entitled to the rulership, arose between 
the petitioner, who was a senior member of a collateral branch, and the 
son adopted by the widow of the last ruler. The Government of India con· 
stituted a Committee consisting of the Chief Justice of the Rajastban High 
Court and the Rulers of two other merging States to exam1ne the rival 
contentions. The petitioner took part in the proceedin.11s before the Com· 
mittee, relied on Art. XI'/ of the Covenant, and disputed the jurisdiction 
of the Committee to go into the' question. The Committee submitted its 
report ll!ld the President of India recognised the adopted ron a& the Ruler 
of DhQ)pur, under Art. 366(22) of the Constitution. 
On the question of the validity of such recognition, 
HELD: (I) Under Art. 366 (22i the power of the President to re· 
cognise a Ruler is inherent in the Article. The words 'for the time being 
is recognised by the President' in the Article, are used not only in relation 
to a Ruler but also in relation to a successor of such Ruler. [636 C-EJ 
(2) Such an act oi recognition is an exercise of political power by the 
President. It is a matter of personal status, and not of inheritance m· of 
descent by devolution, nor is it based only on covenants and treati~. The 
covenants ceased to be effective after the enactment of the Constitution 
in so far as they were inconsistent with the Constitution, (637 B.CJ 
( 3) The power to recognise a Ruler which is conferred on the Presi· 
dent by the Constitution cannot be challenged on the ground that the 
power is unguided. 
It was in fact exercised by appointing a 
committee lO examine the rival claims. Whatever rights the petitioner 
asserted in regard to succession were the sublect matter of enquiry by the 
Comittee. If t'1e petitioner sought to rely on Art. XIV of the Cove-
nant, be had to establish such a right based on custom or law before the 
appropriate authority. Under Art. 363 a dispute arising out of such re-
cognition by virtue of a Covenant is not justiciable in a court of law. [636 
E-H; 637 A-Bl 
( 4) The right IQ private property is not embraced within Art. 366(22), 
and the President's notification recognising the Ruler did not state that 
the Ruler thereby became entitled to priv•te properties of the late Ruler, 
632 
SUPP,!MI! COUP,T REPORTS 
[1970) 2 s.c.R. 
nor did It !ll!ect any print• property in the poa-111n of tb.o petitiwor. 
It ooly recoplaed the right to •11~d to the gailllt of !hi Rlllor. 
ii~ob 
recognition entitles the 11.ulor to the enj~ment of the prl\IY pune and 
the penonal riabte, privlleaea and dlainlttea of the 11.uler of 111 Indian 
State. But the payment of any awn u privy pune is from the coneoli-
dated fund of India and, tile privy J1Ul8C is not an item of private pro-
perty to whlcb the lluler succeeds. Therefore, there is no infrinament of 
the petitioner's ril!hts under Art. 19( 1) (f) or Art. 31 by 112y executive 
fiat [635 E.-H; 636 A·B; 637 D] 
. 
( 5) Nor did aucb reeogaition instantaneously invest tho 11.uler with 
propel'\Y on tho basis that rulersbip and property were blended to11c\ber. 
If the petitioner had any competing ri!Pts with the Ruler in relation to 
any private property of tho last Ruler, of which the Ruler came into pos· 
session after his recognition by the President, such a claim 1$ not a fund•· 
A 
B 
mental right, nor was it established in any court of law. [637 F-H, 638 
C 
A-BJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ; Writ Petition No. 190 of 1966.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.