9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and validity of Article 366(22) of the Constitution. 2. Scope and enforceability of Article 291 of the Constitution. 3. Scope of Article 362 of the Constitution. 4. Jurisdictional bar under Article 363 of the Constitution. 5. Maintainability of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6. Reliefs sought by the petitioners. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope and Validity of Article 366(22) of the Constitution: The primary issue was whether Article 366(22) confers on the President the power to abolish Rulership. The court held that Article 366(22) imposes a constitutional duty on the President to recognize the Ruler of each Indian State. The President's power under Article 366(22) is limited to recognizing the successor of the Ruler who entered into the Covenant or Agreement. The President does not have the power to abolish Rulership as a class. The power to recognize includes the duty to recognize, and the President cannot refuse to recognize a Ruler. The power to recognize is not the same as the power to create or abolish Rulership. 2. Scope and Enforceability of Article 291 of the Constitution: Article 291 guarantees the payment of privy purses to the Rulers and charges the same on the Consolidated Fund of India. The court held that Article 291 creates a legal right in favor of the Rulers to receive privy purses and imposes a binding obligation on the Union of India to pay the same. The payment of privy purses under Article 291 is not merely a moral assurance but a constitutional guarantee. The expression "charged on the Consolidated Fund of India" creates a statutory lien over the fund, and the payment is not subject to the vote of Parliament. The privy purses are exempt from all taxes on income. 3. Scope of Article 362 of the Constitution: Article 362 requires the executive and legislative organs of the Union and the States to have due regard to the guarantees given to the Rulers with respect to their personal rights, privileges, and dignities. The court held that Article 362 is linked with the Agreements and Covenants and does not create new rights but recognizes existing guarantees. The provisions of Article 362 are not enforceable through courts of law but impose a constitutional duty on the executive and legislative organs to respect the guarantees given under the Agreements and Covenants. 4. Jurisdictional Bar under Article 363 of the Constitution: Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of courts in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or other similar instrument entered into before the commencement of the Constitution. The court held that the disputes in the present case do not fall within the scope of Article 363 as they relate to the interpretation of constitutional provisions and not to the enforcement of rights arising out of the Agreements and Covenants. The court has the jurisdiction to interpret the scope and validity of Articles 291, 362, and 366(22). 5. Maintainability of Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution: The court held that the petitions under Article 32 are maintainable as the petitioners have alleged the violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. The right to receive privy purses and the privileges guaranteed under the Agreements and Covenants constitute property within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. The deprivation of these rights without authority of law violates the petitioners' fundamental rights. 6. Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners: The court allowed the petitions and issued writs declaring that the orders made by the President on September 6, 1970, derecognizing the Rulers, were illegal and inoperative. The petitioners are entitled to all their pre-existing rights and privileges, including the right to privy purses, as if the orders had not been made. The court directed the Union of India to continue to pay the privy purses to the petitioners and to recognize their Rulership and personal rights and privileges. The petitions were allowed with costs. Conclusion: The court concluded that the President does not have the power to abolish Rulership under Article 366(22). Article 291 creates a legal right to receive privy purses, and Article 362 imposes a constitutional duty to respect the guarantees given to the Rulers. The jurisdictional bar under Article 363 does not apply to the present disputes, and the petitions under Article 32 are maintainable. The court declared the impugned orders as illegal and inoperative and directed the Union of India to continue to pay the privy purses and recognize the Rulership and privileges of the petitioners.
|
