New Delhi: Are Indian courts completely barred from hearing disputes between the government and erstwhile royal families over properties specifically mentioned in pre-Constitution era covenants signed mutually between the two entities?
The legal debate has arisen before the Supreme Court, where four members of the Jaipur royal family have questioned a Rajasthan High Court order, which earlier held that the family had no right to file a suit in the HC to either demand the possession of Sawai Man Singh Town Hall, which is also known as the Old Vidhan Sabha, or claim mesne profits, i.e., the fees paid to property owners for wrongful occupation of any of their properties.
The Town Hall remains listed in a covenant executed between the erstwhile Jaipur State ruler Sawai Man Singh II and the Government of India (GoI) in March 1949, i.e., in pre-Constitution times.
The HC barred the family suit, citing Article 363 of the Constitution. Article 363 bars courts from the jurisdiction of disputes arising from certain treaties, agreements, covenants, sanad, engagements, etc., between a princely state and the GoI.
However, contesting it was an “erroneous interpretation” of the law by the HC, the members of the Jaipur royal family, in their appeal before the apex court, argued that Article 363 did not curtail their right to demand the possession of the immovable properties that the covenant categorised as “personal properties” and that had temporarily been given up for official use under the agreement.
The family appealed that the Sawai Man Singh Town Hall was such a property. Since it had not been in official use since 2001, the family said that it should regain possession. The family has also opposed a move by the Rajasthan government to convert the Town Hall into a museum.
On Monday, a Justice Prashant Mishra-led bench agreed to adjudicate the dispute after lawyers, who are representing the royal family, claimed the case was not one of ownership but rather was an attempt by the family to exercise their civil rights.
Contesting that Article 363 is applicable in the case, as the state has contended, the family counsel argued that applying the provision should be restricted—not broadened—to issues not directly linked to the covenant.
In this report, ThePrint breaks down a crucial legal question that will likely have a bearing on the legacy property rights of erstwhile royal families in India.
What the case is
The 1947 Indian Independence Act established the Dominion of India post-Independence. On 30 March 1949, various rulers of the “United States of Rajasthan” executed respective covenants and merged with the Dominion of India.
With the enforcement of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, all the erstwhile princely states merged with the Republic of India, i.e., Bharat. Articles 291 and 366(22) of the Constitution gave all the covenants the power of laws.
According to the covenants, all rulers conceded to ceding all movable and immovable properties to the Dominion of India. However, some properties continued as private or personal properties, as exceptions to this rule. The rulers had the full ownership rights to those properties. The covenants affirmed the preservation of those private/personal properties for the successors of the rulers.
The covenant signed between Sawai Man Singh II and the Government of India contained “letters collateral and the inventory”. According to the Jaipur royal family, Town Hall, the property in dispute, was recorded under a “statement showing the private properties, both immovable and movable of His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur”, essentially meaning that the royal family continued to own the properties and that the government did not take the properties over.
According to the inventory attached to the “letters collateral” of the covenant in the current case, Sawai Man Singh, at the request of the Indian government, handed the Town Hall over to the Rajasthan government for a limited duration, giving it limited user rights. The government would use the Town Hall as one of its official premises till a move to a more suitable campus, according to the agreement.
The state government converted the Town Hall into the Vidhan Sabha, which remained in use till the end of 2001. Thereafter, the family wrote to the state government, demanding the repossession of the property. As the issue remained pending, the state government, in October 2022, decided to set up a museum at the site, prompting the family to file a civil suit in a trial court, which rejected the state’s plea to dismiss the suit at the threshold since Article 363 barred it.
However, on a state appeal, the high court overturned the trial court order, declaring the civil suit non-maintainable.
Also Read: Illegal Aravalli road: SC panel rebukes Haryana chief secy for pinning blame on forest officials
What the HC ruled
After discussing the objective behind Article 363, the HC concluded it was disallowing the courts from entertaining disputes related to pre-Constitution-time covenants, maintaining the stability of such agreements entered into with the erstwhile rulers of the Indian states. The only exception to this is Article 143, which allows the President of India to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact, the HC observed.
In the current dispute, the HC concluded that under the terms of the covenant, the state government carried the responsibility for the Town Hall’s use and maintenance. The primary condition remained the preservation of the immovable properties for the future successors of the rulers, the court said, adding that the properties, however, were not meant for disposal in any manner.
The HC, moreover, declared that the said property could not be put to commercial use, pulling up the state government for attempting to do so. The covenant, the HC held, prohibited even a joint venture commercial project involving the state and the royal family.
On properties for sale, the HC pointed to Part B of the covenant, saying that only properties listed in that section could be disposed of by the royal family. “The state government … given the right of use without prescribing any condition, has a right to continue to occupy these properties forever and to use the same only for official purposes,” the HC held.
It added that pre-Independence, the erstwhile rulers developed areas under them using the ‘lagaan (revenue)‘ and public tax from the public exchequer. Post-Independence, the democratically elected government replaced the erstwhile rulers, with the monarchy transformed into a Republic. “In such circumstances, the properties mentioned in [the] covenant are meant for forever use by the Government [of India] for official purposes and with right of ownership [with] legal heirs of [the] erstwhile ruler of Jaipur,” the HC observed.
Petitioner’s argument on Article 363
Applying Article 363 is central to this dispute, with the royal family claiming that since it only exerted its rights to repossess the Town Hall so the constitutional provision was immaterial. The family added that its ownership of the Town Hall was not in question, and the covenant clarifies that.
The family said that the covenant classified royal properties into two categories—the private properties of the ruler and the state properties. The covenant only created a mechanism for identifying the pre-existing private properties of the ruler, who, along with the GoI, had settled on categorising certain properties as private.
“Once the Government of India accepted that a particular property was private property, such acceptance meant only that the Government recognised that the properties in question had always been the private properties of the ruler,” the appeal submitted.
Not directly related to the covenant, the dispute concerned its general right under civil laws, which was to prevent any unauthorised use of its property, the family said. The covenant, the family clarified, was only to establish its ownership right and that there was no discord during the settlement.
The family, which referred to its communication with the state on various occasions in support of its contention, claimed the Rajasthan government illegally kept the Town Hall premises locked, out of bounds for the family.
Drawing support from the 1971 Supreme Court judgment, the family said that Article 363 had to be strictly interpreted, and the clauses excluding the courts from jurisdiction had to be read narrowly, without giving them an over-expansive interpretation. And, in that case, the courts would have to hear disputes that only had an incidental relation to the covenant.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: 2021 Bengal post-poll violence: Why SC cited ‘links to TMC’ while setting aside bail to 4 accused