Court Upholds Constitutional Bar on Writ Jurisdiction; Imposes Costs on Petitioner
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sanoop V.V., challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin family. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K. V. Jayakumar, found the petition non-maintainable under Article 363 of the Indian Constitution, which precludes court jurisdiction over disputes arising from treaties or agreements made before the Constitution's commencement.
The petitioner, a devotee and alumnus of institutions managed by the Zamorin's Kovilakam, argued that the Malikhana allowance, a hereditary political pension, was abolished by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. He also raised concerns about the financial and moral standing of the allowance's claimant, Sri. P.K. Kerala Varma, who faces substantial financial liabilities and legal proceedings.
However, the Court determined that the Malikhana allowance, distinct from the abolished Privy Purse, stems from a historical covenant between the British Government and the Zamorin Raja, thus falling within the ambit of Article 363's jurisdictional bar. Furthermore, the petitioner was deemed to lack the locus standi to file the petition, as he was neither a family member nor had any direct interest in the allowance.
In a detailed judgment, the Court emphasized the constitutional distinction between Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance, noting that the latter continues unaffected by the 26th Amendment. The Bench also highlighted the absence of the Union of India as a party in the proceedings, reinforcing the petition's procedural inadequacy.
The judgment underscores the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in matters involving historical agreements and the necessity of adhering to constitutional provisions. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the High Court Mediation Centre, for filing a non-maintainable petition.
Bottom Line:
Writ Petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance dismissed on the grounds of maintainability under Article 363 of the Constitution of India, lack of locus standi of the petitioner, and distinction between Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance.
Statutory provision(s): Article 363 of the Constitution of India, Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971
Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2835640
