LexRAGHUNATHRAO GANPATRAO ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAGHUNATHRAO GANPATRAO ETC. ETC.
v.
>..
)
UNION OF INDIA
l::
FEBRUARY 4, 1993
~j
B
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, B.P. JEEVAN
REDDY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND S. MOHAN, JJ.]
'
Constitution of India, 1950-,4rticles 291, 362, 366 (22) and 363-A-
..a.:
i
Constitutio:1 (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971-Constitutional validity
c of-Whether violates basic structure and essential features of the Constitution.
Constitution of India 1951>-Article 368--Power of amendment-
Limitations.
,.
Constitution of India, 1951>-Articles 14, 19( 1)(/), 21, 31( 1), (2), 291,
..;t
r
D 362, 368-Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971-Abolition of
privy purses-Whether violative of Article 14-W/tether personality of Con-
stitution c/1anged--Wliether theory of political justice tenable.
'
Constitution of India, 1951>-Articles 291, 362, 368-Constitution
(Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971-Abolition of privy purses-Whether
E Articles 29 I, 362 organic unity of India facilitated.
~
Constitution of India, 1951>-Articles 291, 362, 368-Constituti011
(Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971-Abolition of privy purses-Will of tl1e
people expressed through Parliament-Court's duty whether to concern with
F
moral aspect of amendments.
WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 1992
-{
The petitioner was a Co-Ruler of an Ex-Indian State of Kurundwad.
,..
His Co-Ruler, on behalfof both, executed an instrument of accession under
•
G Section 5 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and their State became a
lc '
part of the Dominion of India. A Merger Agreement was executed on the
'll
19th February, 1948 and the administration of the State of the petitioner
I
was also handed over to the Dominion Government on the 8th March,
.....
1948.
H
The case of the petitioner was that uuder the Merger Agreement he
1
480
~
RAGHUNATII v. U.0.1.
481
was entitled to receive annually from the revenues or the State his privy A
purse as specified in the Merger Agreement.
Certain groups of States entered into covenants for the estab·
llshment of United States .comprising the territories of the covenanting
States and Talukas with a common executive, legislature and judiciary.
On 13th October, 1949 the Constituent Assembly of India adopted
i11ter·alia two Articles-namely, Article 291 relating to payment of privy
purse and Article 362 relating to personal rights and privileges of the
Rulers.
The Rulers and Rajpramukhs of the States agreed to adopt the
Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly or India.
In pursuance of Article 366(22) of the Constitution or India, the
petitioner was recognized as the Ruler of the Kurundwad State with effect
B
c
;-
from 26th January, 1950 and had been in the enjoyment of the privy purse, D
privileges, titles and dignities issued by Merger Agreement, and by the
Constitution of India.
The Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amend·
meot) Act of 1971, repealing Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution, a
new Article 363-A was inserted and new clause (22) to Article 366 was
substituted. It resulted in depriving the Rulers or their recognition already
accorded to them and declaring the aboliti.on of the privy purse and
extinguishing their rights and obligation in respect of privy purse.
E
The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the impugned F
Amendment Act as unconstitutional and violative and the fundamental
rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(1), 21 and
31 (1),(2) of the Constitution.
In the Writ Petition No. 351/72, I.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 1992 were filed
by the daughters of Late ¥aharaja of Mysore.
G
WRIT PETITION NO. 798 OF 1992
The petitioner was the successor to the Ruler of Mysore also chal·
leuged the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act or 1971 OD the same
grounds as in Writ Petition No. 351/72.
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993) 1 S.C.R.
A
The petitioner in W.P. No. 351/72 submitted that Articles 291, 362
and 366(22) of the Constitution were integral part of the constitutional
scheme and formed the important basic structure since the underlying
purpose of these Articles was to facilitate stabilization of the new order
and ensure organic unity of India; that the deletion of the Articles djtmaged
B and demolished the very basic structure of the Constitution; "that the
covenants entered into were in the nature of contracts which was guaran·
teed constitutionally and affirmed by making the privy purse an expendi·
ture chExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.