Supreme Court Declares Presidential Order Derecognizing Indian Rulers Illegal, Restores Privy Purses and Privileges

Historic judgment affirms constitutional protection of erstwhile rulers’ rights under Articles 291, 362, and 366(22), holding executive order ultra vires and beyond presidential power.

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 15, 1970, a 11-judge bench (Large Bench) of the Supreme Court of India decisively ruled against the Government of India’s move to withdraw recognition of the Rulers of the former Indian States, declaring the presidential orders dated September 6, 1970, illegal and inoperative. The bench held that the executive action to derecognize all rulers simultaneously, thereby terminating their privy purses and personal privileges, was beyond the scope of constitutional authority and violated the fundamental constitutional guarantees.

The case arose when, following the rejection of the Constitution (Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970 in the Rajya Sabha—which sought to abolish privy purses and privileges—the Union Cabinet advised the President to exercise his power under Article 366(22) of the Constitution to withdraw recognition of the rulers. The President issued orders to that effect, which led to the stoppage of privy purses and discontinuation of privileges for the former rulers.

The petitioners, including H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior and others, filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the orders as unconstitutional, ultra vires, mala fide, and violative of fundamental rights, including Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(f) (right to property), and 31 (protection against deprivation of property without authority of law).

The Court undertook a detailed historical and constitutional analysis of the status of the Indian States, Instruments of Accession, Covenants, and Merger Agreements entered into between the Rulers and the Government of India during the integration process post-independence. It emphasized that the privy purses and privileges were constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 291, 362, and 366(22) and formed part of the quid pro quo for the merger of princely states into the Indian Union.

The majority held that:

- The President’s power to recognize a Ruler under Article 366(22) is coupled with a constitutional duty to maintain the institution of rulership, including recognition of lawful successors according to the law and custom governing the State.

- The power to derecognize all Rulers en masse without recognizing successors is not contemplated by the Constitution and is ultra vires.

- The privy purses charged on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 291 constitute a legal right, enforceable in courts, and are property within the meaning of Articles 19 and 31.

- The jurisdiction of courts under Article 32 and 226 is not ousted by Article 363 in matters where the executive acts ultra vires or nullifies constitutional rights.

- The executive cannot bypass constitutional amendments by executive fiat; the President cannot do indirectly what Parliament could not do directly.

- The bar under Article 363 applies only to bona fide disputes arising out of covenants and agreements and does not shield ultra vires or mala fide executive actions.

The Court accordingly issued writs quashing the presidential orders, reinstating the privy purses and privileges of the petitioners, and affirming their status as Rulers for constitutional purposes. The judgment stresses the sanctity of solemn constitutional guarantees and rejects any notion of “paramountcy” of the President akin to the British Crown’s erstwhile paramountcy, noting that India’s democratic Constitution vests sovereignty in the people, with all State organs subject to constitutional limits.

Significantly, the Court ruled that the privy purse is a constitutional right payable free of income tax, not merely a political pension, and that its payment is an obligation of the Union government charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. The judgment also clarifies that recognition of Rulership by the President is an executive function but not a political power beyond judicial review.

This historic verdict protects the legal and constitutional rights of over 300 former Indian rulers, reinforcing the rule of law and constitutional supremacy in India’s federal democratic framework. It also underscores the limited and defined powers of the President in matters relating to recognition of Rulers and the importance of Parliament’s role in constitutional amendments.

Statutory provisions

Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 21, 31, 32, 53, 73, 112, 113, 114, 291, 362, 363, 366(22), Constitution of India; Constitution (Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970 (rejected)

---

This judgment is a seminal constitutional law decision reaffirming the constitutional guarantees extended to the former Indian princes post-integration and limiting executive overreach in constitutional matters. It provides an authoritative and elaborate interpretation of Articles 291, 362, 363, and 366(22), clarifying the justiciability of constitutional rights and the scope of presidential powers, and is a milestone in the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 108313