9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the former Covenanting States, which formed the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The proviso to Article X(2) of the Covenant limits the life of an Ordinance to not more than six months from the date of its promulgation. The petitioner contends that the period of six months expired long ago and so the Ordinance is no longer valid and subsisting law. The Original Covenant was entered into by the Rulers on 5th May, 1948. Later, on 9th April, 1949, they entered into a Supplementary Covenant whereby the proviso to paragraph 2 of Article X of the Original Covenant was so amended as to confer power on the Rajpramukh to legislate by Ordinance without any limitation as to time till the first meet- ing of the Constituent Assembly and after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive, legisla- ture and judiciary, by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union. Paragraph (I) (a) of Article VI lays down that: "The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall, as soon as may be practicable, and in any event not later than the 20th of August, 1948, make over the administration of his State to the Rajpramukh and there- upon- (a) All rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State shall vest in the Union and shall hereafter be exercisable only as provided by this Covenant or by the Constitution to be framed there- under." The Covenant thus, among other matters, provides how the Govern- ment of the Pepsu State shall be constituted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to his former State. This Council of Rulers was a new institu- tion and its existence-in fact it never came into existence-would not provide any indication of part of the sovereignty of a former Covenanting State having been left with the Ruler of that State. Under Article XI the Ruler of each Covenanting State is entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the Pepsu State a certain amount as privy purse. Under Article XII he is entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private property. These Articles provide for financial protection to the Rulers, but I do not see how an inference is available from them that the sovereignty of a Ruler of a Covenanting State continued to vest in him in relation to that State. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity that remains in the new State is the properly constituted sovereign authority under the Covenant itself. In Pirthi Singh and Others v. State of Pepsu and Others(1), another argument employed in support of the conclusion arrived at in that case is that international law also allows modification and revision of treaties made by independent States. This is perfectly correct, but where are the independent States now. The former Covenanting States ceased to exist as sovereign entities on the date of the Original Covenant and no independent States remained in existence having capacity to enter into a fresh treaty modifying and revising the Original Covenant. Then it is also stated in the same case that the Rulers entering into the Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haraja of Patiala who was and is the Rajpramukh was himself a party to the second Covenant, the Government of India gave their assent to it." If I may say so with due respect, I do not see how the fact that the Constituent Assembly did not come into existence makes any difference because in its absence the Covenant makes a provision for the exercise of the legislative functions of the new State. In my view the real matter is that the new State was provided with its own legislature. In what form that legislature functioned is a matter that does not affect the substance of the question whether or not the former Rulers retained any measure of sovereignty in themselves in relation to their former States after the Covenant was signed and the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there has been such a surrender of (1) A.I.R. 1952 M.B. 57. sovereignty it is not open to the former Sovereigns to regain that sovereignty at will. If it was open to me to consider this question I would say that the Supplementary Covenant could not amend or alter the Original Covenant and the powers of the Rajpramukh to make Ordinances under the Original Covenant could not be changed except by the Constituent Assembly formed under the provisions of the Covenant or in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India after it was enforced in this State. But this matter is now concluded by the authority in Pirthi Singh and Others v. The State of Pepsu and Others(1), in which a Division Bench of this Court, following Ram Dubey's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
