No Royal Titles In A Republic: Rajasthan High Court's Direction To Members Of Erstwhile Ruling Family Of Jaipur
When the Constituent Assembly on 9th December 1948 introduced the Draft Constitution containing Article 12 (now Article 18[1]) of the Indian Constitution, it was applauded as a reform that would uphold the principle of equality and democracy among the different classes of people.
Article 18[2] of the Indian Constitution prohibits states from conferring any titles (except academic or military) and forbids Indian citizens from accepting titles from any foreign state. It further bans government servants and citizens holding office under the state from accepting titles of honour without the President's consent. [3]
In other words, the titles like 'Maharaja', 'Raja', 'Nawab', 'Begum' and 'Princess 'were abolished to end monarchical privilege, bolstering the ascendancy and to uphold the virtue of Article 15 of the Draft Constitution (now Article 14 of the Indian Constitution[4]), which describes “That the state shall not deny any person equality before law or the equal protection of law in the state”.
Present Scenario of the Situation
Recently, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on 3rd October, 2025, ordered the royal Family of Jaipur to remove the 'Prefixes' such as 'Maharaja' and Princess' from their petition in a house tax dispute filed by Maharaja Prithviraj and Maharaja Jagat Singh through their legal representative.
The Court noted that the matter would be automatically dismissed if the necessary corrections [amended clause showing only their personal names] are not complied with before 13th October, 2025, and their 24-year-old petition will be dismissed without further reference.
The case dated back to 2001 and involved the Writ Petition before the High Court under the names of Maharaja Prithviraj and Maharaja Jagat Singh, representing the royal heritage. These descendants of the Jaipur Royal family are contesting the tax imposed by the Municipal Corporation on their ancestral property. [Maharaja Prithviraj V State & Ors. S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/2001]. [5]
Recognition of Titles After India's Independence
After India's independence, the government introduced the Instruments of Accession and Merger Agreements, which were used to merge small states and princely states into the Union of India. Following the signing of the Instrument of Accession, the smaller states were merged with neighbouring provinces or other princely states to form a new province, as specified in the Instrument of Accession. This process included the breakup of the Princely states and the merger of the princely states into the Union of India, therefore removing the Rajas from power. The Instrument handed over three subject matters, such as defence, External Affairs and Communication, to the Union of India, and the Princely states were to receive annual payments from the Consolidated Fund of India and their recognition of titles, privileges, and personal rights. [6]
The President's Order Of 1970
The Government introduced the Order of the President on September 6, 1970, withdrawing the recognition of all princely states, their privy purses, personal rights and privileges of the rulers, as the people of the country have become conscious of their social and economic rights, and they cannot tolerate any concept of rulership being granted to anyone in form of privy pursues and other benefits. [7]
Implication Of the Order Of 1970
The Supreme Court in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior & Ors. vs. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court of India, by a 4:3 majority, struck down the Presidential Order of 1970, which sought to terminate the privy purses and other rights conferred to the Princely states under Article 291[9] and 362[10] of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that the President's Act of denial of recognition was illegal because it breached constitutional safeguards derived from the Instruments of Accession and Merger Agreements agreed while entering the agreement.[11]
Legislation View Behind The 26th Constitutional Amendment
The government, following the judgment in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior (Supra), introduced the 26th Constitutional Amendment in 1971[12] to establish principles of equality and republicanism in India's democratic system, emphasising that such titles are incompatible with the democracy of the nation.
The 26th Constitutional Amendment, passed during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's term, stated: “The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions or social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order.
The amendment repealed Articles 291[13] and 362[14], abolished privy purses and inserted Article 363A[15] after Article 363[16], which says that recognition granted to rulers of Indian states is to cease, and privy purses are to be abolished.[17]
Further, Article 14 (Equality Before Law)[18], Article 18 (Abolition of Titles)[19], and Article 363-A[20] do not recognise any titles given to any citizen (except the military and academic) by their citizens.
Precedents Upholding The 26th Constitutional Amendment
In Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Vs. Union of India[21], the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971[22], which abolished the privy purses and other rights of the princely states. The court held that the 26th Amendment was enacted within the constitutional framework and did not violate the basic structure doctrine. It ruled that the abolition of the privy purse and royal privileges did not impair democracy, equality and the rule of law, as such privileges were political arrangements rather than constitutional or unyielding rights. Therefore, Parliament can pass such laws to establish an egalitarian and republican society.[23]
Precedents Relating To The Use Of 'Maharaja' And 'Princess' In Court Cases
In D.B. Vinod Agarwal v. Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma[24], the Kerala High Court questioned the use of 'His Highness' and 'Maharaja' in a state advertisement referring to the Travancore Royal Family. The court held that such use was not unconstitutional, as it was done socially and not officially.
Further, in Bhagwati Singh and Others vs Raja Laxman Singh and Others,[25] the Rajasthan High Court, relying on the judgment of Raghunathrao Ganpatrao (Supra), held that titles like 'Maharaja' and 'Raja' cannot be used in public offices, courts, and documents and filings. The use of such salutations or titles in cause titles or public domains was declared prohibited in view of constitutional amendments and equality principles.[26]
Continued Use Of Titles Such As 'Maharajas' And 'Princess'
Despite the official elimination of royal titles and privileges, the India Courts occasionally allude to members of royal families by their previous designation in rulings, merely for identification or historical background. For example, in situations involving historic properties, trusts, or family courts have used terms like 'Maharaja' or 'Princess' to define genealogy or distinguish between identically titled persons, without indicating any formal acknowledgement of titles. These examples highlight the courts' practical approach to harmonising historical background with the egalitarian objectives expressed in Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution.
The Rajasthan High Court order, a directive restraining the Jaipur Royal from removing royal prefixes from their court petition, underscores India's dedication to equality and republicanism. As per the Constitution amendment and legal precedent, such as Raghunathrao Ganpatrao (Supra) and Bhagwati Singh and Others (Supra), it is evident that the legislature and the Courts are clear on the viewpoint on the use of 'Maharaja' and 'Princess' in public offices, courts and official documents. While Constitutional and cultural appreciation may continue socially, constitutional law assures that inherited rights and royal titles have no value or official status, respecting the Indian Constitution.
Authors are advocates practicing at Delhi High Court.
Views Are Personal.
The Constitution of India, art 18 ↑
The Constitution of India, art 18 ↑
J.N Pandey Constitutional Law of India, 100 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 62nd edn., 2025) ↑
The Constitution of India, art 14 ↑
https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-orders-removal-of-maharaj-princess-from-petition-306014 ↑
William, L. Richter: 'Princes in Indian Politics', 6 Economic and Political Weekly, 535 at 538 and 540 (1971) ↑
Fabian Thaiang, “Understanding the Instrument of Accession in India” The Shillong Times, (October 04, 2021) ↑
(1971) 1 SCC 85 ↑
The Constitution of India, art 291(as omitted by 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971) ↑
The Constitution of India, art 362 (as omitted by 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971) ↑
https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/top-stories/privy-purse-abolition-and-padmanabha-swamy-judgment-160025 ↑
The Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 ↑
The Constitution of India, art 291(as omitted by 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971) ↑
The Constitution of India, art 362 (as omitted by 26th Constitutional Amendment Act,1971) ↑
The Constitution of India, art 363A ↑
The Constitution of India, art 363 ↑
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-twenty-sixth-amendment-act-1971&ved=2ahUKEwjB6YHN556QAxXfyDgGHSP-Gq4QFnoECEAQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2qt8I693WZep5jJgxsNlMq ↑
The Constitution of India, art 14 ↑
The Constitution of India, art 18 ↑
The Constitution of India, art 363A ↑
1994 (Suppl.)1 SCC 191 ↑
The Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 ↑
https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/know-the-law/preamble-to-the-constitution-ideals-and-visions-151995 ↑
2013 (3) KLT 1105 ↑
2022 Live Law (Raj) 84 ↑
https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-orders-removal-of-maharaj-princess-from-petition-306014 ↑