SC to Examine Jurisdictional Bar on Disputes Over Princely State Properties Under Pre-Constitutional Covenants

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant matter involving the jurisdiction of civil courts over disputes arising from pre-Constitutional agreements between former princely states and the Union of India. The case raises the question of whether Article 363 of the Constitution prohibits courts from adjudicating claims related to such properties.

The Bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and AG Masih issued notice on a petition filed by members of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family—Rajmata Padmini Devi, Diya Kumari, and Sawai Padmanabh Singh—who are challenging a Rajasthan High Court ruling. The High Court had held that suits involving possession and mesne profits related to the 'Town Hall' property, referenced in a 1949 covenant between the then Maharaja of Jaipur and the Union, are barred under Article 363.

What Is Article 363?

Article 363 of the Constitution excludes judicial scrutiny in matters arising from treaties, covenants, agreements, or engagements entered into before the Constitution came into effect, particularly those involving Indian princely states and the Government of India.

In the present matter, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the covenant in question was entered into by a group of rulers and not directly with the Government of India, which acted merely as a guarantor. He contended that this distinction undermines the application of Article 363.

However, Justice Mishra questioned this line of reasoning, asking, “If the Union of India was not a party to the covenant, how did the merger [of Jaipur] with the Union happen?”

Salve responded that the merger followed the covenant and was formalized under Article 1 of the Constitution. He maintained that Article 363 should not apply in this case, as the property in question was recognized as private property and not a subject of dispute under the terms of the covenant.

“If we start interpreting Article 363 to bar every dispute that mentions a covenant, even where the property is privately held, it will set a problematic precedent,” Salve argued. He emphasized that merely filing a civil suit does not amount to asserting ownership over state property, and that civil remedies should not be automatically excluded by the mere reference to such covenants.

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from four suits filed by the petitioners in a civil court, seeking possession, injunction, and recovery of mesne profits over a building known as the “Town Hall” or the old Vidhan Sabha in Jaipur. The petitioners claimed that while the building was used for official purposes until 2001, it was no longer in public use thereafter, strengthening their claim for recovery.

They referenced the 1949 covenant to support their claim that the Town Hall had been listed under the “private properties” of the then Maharaja, Sawai Bhawani Singh, but clarified that the covenant was not relied upon as the source of title.

The State of Rajasthan, however, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of the suits on the ground that they were barred under Article 363. Although the trial court rejected the plea, the High Court reversed that decision and allowed the State’s civil revision.

The High Court observed that once the plaintiffs relied on the covenant in their pleadings, the bar under Article 363 was triggered, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters.

Key Arguments in the Supreme Court

Before the Apex Court, the petitioners contended that:

• They have not disputed the validity or content of the covenant;

• The High Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 363 could unfairly bar even straightforward civil disputes;

• The ruling contradicts the Supreme Court’s precedent in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India.

In Madhav Rao, the Constitution Bench had ruled that any provision that ousts the jurisdiction of courts must be interpreted narrowly and strictly. The judgment emphasized that access to courts is a fundamental right, and unless explicitly barred by statute, parties should be allowed to seek judicial recourse.

Additionally, the petitioners submitted that following the deletion of Article 362—which once provided guarantees regarding the rights and privileges of princely rulers—Article 363 cannot be construed independently or broadly to cover matters not involving constitutional guarantees or recognitions.

Status Quo to Continue

During the hearing, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma assured the Court that the State would maintain the status quo on the disputed property while the matter is pending. This assurance was formally recorded by the Bench.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have wider implications for similar disputes involving the descendants of former princely states, especially where the ownership of properties listed under historical covenants is contested.

Case Title: Rajmata Padmini Devi & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: SLP(C) No. 16066/2025

Petitioners Represented By: Sr Adv Harish Salve, Sr Adv Vibha Datta Makhija, Kanu Agrawal (AOR), and others.