The Supreme Court is set to examine whether it can intervene in property disputes related to former princely states. The case raises key questions about judicial authority over royal assets after India’s independence.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether Article 363 of the Constitution prevents courts from adjudicating disputes concerning properties of former princely states that are referenced in pre-constitutional covenants.
Article 363 prohibits court interference in disputes arising from certain treaties, agreements, covenants, sanad, and engagements made between a princely state and the Government of India.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih issued a notice regarding a petition filed by members of Jaipur’s royal family, including Rajmata Padmini Devi, Deputy Chief Minister Diya Kumari, and Sawai Padmanabh Singh, concerning the ownership of the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha) and other properties located in the walled city.
The royal family members are contesting a Rajasthan High Court ruling that stated civil courts could not entertain suits for possession of the Town Hall, as outlined in the covenant between the erstwhile princely state and the Union of India, under Article 363.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the royal family, argued that the covenant was established by five princes, with the Government of India serving merely as a guarantor to ensure compliance with its terms.
He noted that this point was not raised in the high court proceedings, which led to the contested judgment made on April 17.
Justice Mishra questioned Salve, asking how the merger with the Union of India occurred if the Government was not a party to the covenant. Salve clarified that the merger happened after the covenant was established, coinciding with the enactment of Article 1 of the Constitution.
Justice Mishra remarked that, based on Salve’s arguments, if the Union of India was not a party to the covenant and Article 363 did not apply, it could potentially lead to every ruler filing claims for their properties.
Salve responded that filing a suit and having a legitimate claim over a property are two distinct matters.
He emphasized that the petitioners were not asserting ownership over properties that were constitutionally assigned to the state as per the covenant, regardless of Article 363.
Justice Mishra stated,
“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,”
He cautioned,
“Tomorrow, you will say the entire Jaipur is yours. This way every princely state will come forward and declare independence.”
The bench agreed to hear the case in detail and issued a notice to the Rajasthan government, indicating that two additional suits may be filed regarding the issue.
Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, representing the Rajasthan government, stated that given the complexity of the matter, the state would not escalate the issue and would maintain the status quo on the disputed properties.
The bench scheduled the next hearing for eight weeks later, recording Sharma’s statement.
This case pertains to a long-standing multi-property dispute between the former royal family of Jaipur and the state government. The contested properties, including the Town Hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk, are currently under government control.
The royal family had initially filed four suits in civil court seeking mandatory injunctions, possession, permanent injunctions, and recovery of mesne profits for the Town Hall.
They asserted that the Town Hall was officially in use only until 2001, after which a new Vidhan Sabha building was constructed, rendering it unused for official purposes. Similar claims were made regarding other properties, which are currently valued at thousands of crores.
On April 17, the high court dismissed the claims of the erstwhile royal family of Jaipur regarding the Town Hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk, deeming them “government properties.”
The court also ruled that no civil court could entertain any claims related to this case, allowing four revision petitions filed by the state government against a subordinate court’s order.
Case Title: RAJMATA PADMINI DEVI AND ORS. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 16066/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
