Can Courts Hear Disputes Arising Out Of Properties Which Are Covered By Pre-Constitutional Agreements Between Princely States And The Union? SC To Consider

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of whether disputes relating to the properties of erstwhile princely states mentioned under preconstitutional covenants are barred from the Courts' jurisdiction under Article 363. 

The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by Jaipur's royal family members, namely, Rajmata Padmini Devi,  Diya Kumari and Sawai Padmanabh Singh. 

The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which held that suits seeking possession or mesne profit of the 'Town Hall', which is mentioned in the covenant between the erstwhile princely state and the Union, cannot be entertained by civil courts under Article 363. 

Article 363 bars the interference of Courts in any disputes which may arise from certain treaties, agreements, covenants, sanad, engagements etc, which were executed between a princely state and the Government of India. 

Sr Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the said covenant was in fact entered into between 5 princes while the Government of India was only a guarantor to ensure that the terms are fulfilled. He pointed out that this aspect was not argued in the proceedings before the High Court. 

Justice Mishra, however, asked, If the Government of India was not a party, "How did you merge with the Union of India?" 

Salve clarified that the merger occurred after the covenant, with the onset of Article 1 of the Constitution. 

However, seemingly disinclined with submission, Justice Mishra then explained, "In this particular document if you say that Union of India is not a party and therefore Article 363 would not apply, every other ruler will file a suit, saying give back my property" 

Salve reverted that only the bar on Courts' interference under Article 363 would not apply in the present scenario. 

"The seized property by the covenant will continue" he added further. 

He further stressed that "filling a suit and having a right (over the property) are two different things." 

Salve clarified that it was not the case of the petitioners to claim ownership over properties which are now constitutionally vested with the state as per the covenant, irrespective of Article 363. 

"Nobody has the right to what is vested with the state- it's finished, it's over. And if I was to ever question the inventory, it would be barred with or without 363 and I'd make that good." 

However, he pointed out that the present interpretation of Article 363 by the High Court may affect those disputes over a ruler's private properties not covered under such covenants and agreements. 

"But if on a technical issue...tomorrow this 363 explanation will lead to another point.." 

The bench, while issuing notice in the petition, also recorded the statement of the Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shiv Mangal Sharma that the State Government will maintain status quo over the concerned properties till the matter is pending before the Apex Court. 

" Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ld AAG submits that the state shall respect the pendency of the SLP and shall not precipitate the matter." 

What Led To The Present Litigation? 

The petitioners had initially filed 4 suits before the Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of mesne profit for their private property known as the “Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha)

The said reliefs were sought considering that the Town Hall was in 'official use' only till 2001, and afterwards, its use was stopped as a new Vidhan Sabha Building was created. In the suit, the Petitioners have relied upon a covenant entered into between the erstwhile ruler and the Govt of India in 1949 " only to the extent that it refers to the title of the plaintiff in the Subject Property."

The plea states that the reference to the covenant was done to highlight that the it also enlists the private properties of the former ruler of Jaipur. It states :

"The Covenant was executed at the time of accession of the erstwhile princely state of Jaipur to the Union of India and merely lists out the “private properties” of the erstwhile Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh ji. Crucially, the Covenant has not been relied upon as a source of title to the Subject Property."

Notably, the covenant in question was executed on March 30, 1949 between the then King of Jaipur, Sawai Man Singh II and the Government of India. As per the said Covenant, the list of properties contained in the inventory would be used by the Government Authorities for official purposes. The Town Hall under the inventory was recorded below the heading "Statement showing the Private Properties, Both Immovable and Movable of His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur.”

Before the Trial Court, the State of Rajasthan sought the dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) by relying upon the bar under Article 363. This application was however rejected by the trial court.

The State then challenged the order of Trial Court under a civil revision before the High Court. Allowing the challenge, the High Court held that :

"In view of averment made in plaint, supported with Covenant it is apparent that these suits are clearly barred Article 363 of Constitution of India as the suits were filed against the State Government and the plaintiff(s) have no right or authority to file any civil suit or any other proceeding in any court of law against Union of India or State Government to demand possession or mesne profit of the properties mentioned in Covenant as these properties are neither on lease nor on licence." 

The main contention of the petitioners before the Supreme Court is (1) that the covenant provisions have not been challenged; (2) the interpretation given by the High Court to Article 363 would oust the petitioners from seeking any civil remedy related to their properties, even if they are of a simple nature under civil laws; (3) the impugned decision is contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India. 

In Madhav Rao Scindia, it was held that provisions ousting the jurisdiction of Courts must be given a strict interpretation. Here, the Constitution bench addressed the constitutional validity of the Presidential Order of 1970, which abolished the privy purses and official recognition of Indian princes granted under Article 291 and Article 362 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant portion of the decision states : 

"A provision which purports to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts in certain matters and to deprive the aggrieved party of the normal remedy will be strictly construed, for it is a principle not to be whittled down that an aggrieved party will not, unless the jurisdiction of the Courts is by clear enactment or necessary implication barred, be denied his right to seek recourse to the Courts for determination of his rights. The Court will interpret a statute as far as possible, agreeably to justice and reason and that in case of two or more interpretations, one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted, for there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason." 

Additionally, the petitioners argue that after the deletion of Article 362 from the Constitution, Article 363 cannot be interpreted widely as the latter was dependent upon the former, which no longer exists. 

Article 362 stated: " Rights and privileges of Rulers of Indian States: In the exercise of the power of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State to make laws or in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State, due regard shall be had to the guarantee or assurance given under any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in clause (1) of article 291 with respect to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State." 

Counsel for Petitioners : Harish Salve, Sr Adv; Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr Adv; Kanu Agrawal, AOR; Ramni Taneja, Adv; Parantap Singh, Adv; Gaurang Bhushan, Adv; Srishti Agarwal, Adv; Gaurav Vats, Adv; Soumik Ghosal, Adv; S. Rohini, Adv

Case details: RAJMATA PADMINI DEVI AND ORS. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 16066/2025