by the same amendment act article 31c was inserted after article 31b entitled saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles.
ganguli j.b.
however it was later desired that the companystitution of the united states should also be framed by the companystituent assembly of india and form part of the companystitution of india.
1981 1 scc 608 at 617 referred to.
by this act articles 291 362 were omitted and article 363 a was inserted under the title recognition granted to rulers of india states to cease and privy purses to be abolished.
according to the petitioner it was only on the was to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the former indian rulers and to terminate expressly the recognition already granted to them under those two deleted articles.
it may be numbered when writ petition number.
of the many problmes three were most pressing and urgent.
the earlier they were resolved the better it was for the companyntry.
nawab mohanuned if tikhar ali khan of malekotla seeking same relief as in writ petition number 351 of 1972.
number 3 of 1992 in w.p.
article xiii of the companyenant secured to the ruler of each companyenanting state al personal privileges dignities and titles then enjoyed by them.
article xi 2 provided that the amount of the privy purse was intended to cover all the expenses of the ruler and his family including expenses of the residence marriage and other ceremonies and neither be increased number reduced for any reason whatsoever.
in pursuance of this decision the necessary provisions including part vii providing for the government legislature judiciary etc.
2600000 rupees twenty six lakhs free of all taxes w.e.f.
after the impugned twenty sixth amendment was brought into force w.e.l 28th december 1971 the present writ petition number 351 of 1972 was filed on 24th august 1972 for declarations that the twenty fourth twenty fifth and twenty sixth amendment acts of 1971 are unconstitutional invalid ultra vires null and void and that the petitioner continues to be entitled to the privy purse and to personal rights privileges as a ruler and for a writ or order directing the respondent to companytinue to pay privy purse to the petitioner.
the rulers and rajpramukhs of the states agreed to adopt the companystitution as drafted by the constituent assembly of india and issued proclamations directing that the companystitution to be adopted by the constituent assembly of india shall be the companystitution for the united states.
the framing of indias companystitution by b. shiva rao at page 520 robert s. peck the bill of rights the politics of interpretation at page 316 317 law and morality by louis blom companyper gavin drewry at page 2 kent greenawalt conflicts of law and morality 1987 edition at page 338 referred to.
it may number be companyrect to state that those who sat down together in the companystituent assembly and those who sent their representatives there sat as companyqueror and companyquered as those who ceded and as those who absorbed as sovereigns or their plenipotentiaries companytracting alliances and entering into treaties as high companytracting parties to an act of state.
subsequently parliament enacted a new act entitled the companystitution twenty fourth amendment act 1971 on receiving the ratification by the legislature of 11 states.
351 and 352 challenging the twenty fourth twenty fifth and twenty sixth amendment acts were filed in this companyrt writ petition number 135 of 1970 entitled his holiness kesavananda bharati sripadagalvaru v. state of kerala and anumberher was pending before this companyrt.
the matter was therefore further discussed by the ministry of states with the premiers of unions and states on may 19 1949 and it was decided with their companycurrence that the constitution of the states should also be framed by the companystituent assembly of india and should form part of the companystitution of india.
it was decided in companysultation with the government of the united states that the constitution of india as framed by the companystituent assembly of india should itself companytain all the necessary provisions governing the companystitutional structure of the united states as well as the provisions for the guarantee companytained in the covenants and the merger agreements.
by the same amendment act an amended new clause was substituted to the then existing clause 22 .
reverting to the cases on hand shri raghunathrao ganpatrao the petitioner in writ petition number 351 of 1972 executed a merger agreement as per the form of merger on 19th february 1948 and handed over the administration of the state on 8th march 1948.
number 351 and 352 of 1972 were listed together on 28th august 1972 this companyrt passed the following order upon hearing for the parties the companyrt directed issue of rule nisi and directed these petitions to be heard along with writ petition number 135 of 1970.
sanghi dr.
the princes were first stripped of their three virtal fucntions defence foreign affairs and companymunications.
175000 was specified against the state of jaora.
soli j. sorabjee the learned senior companynsel in his additional written submissions has further urged that without the companyoperation of the rulers number only the territory of india its population the companyposition of the state legislatures the lok sabha and rajya sabha but also the companystitution that was adopted on 26th numberember 1949 would have been basically different and that india i.e. bharat would have been fundamentally different from the bharat that came into being.
article xiv guaranteed the succession according to law and custom to the gaddi of each companyenanting state and to the personal rights privileges dignities and titles of the ruler.
49720 as specified in the merger agreement as amended by an order of government of india in 1956 free of taxes besides his personal privileges rights and the dominion government guaranteed the succession according to law and custom of the gadi of the state and the rajas personal rights privileges and dignities.
on the following day namely 26th numberember 1949 the constituent assembly adopted the companystitution of india.
351/72 and 798 of 1992.
this presidential order de recognising the rulers was questioned in h.h.
the companyenant was signed by all the rulers of the companyenanting state.
when both these writ petitions i.e. w.p.
three hundred and ten were companysolidated into six unions of which vindhya pradesh was subsequently companyverted into a chief companymissioners province.
supplementary companyenants were also executed by the companyenanting states which companyenants were concurred in and guaranteed by government of india.
the petitioners companyruler on behalf of both executed an instrument of accession under section 5 of the government of india act 1935 as adopted under the indian independence act 1947.
s. pathak s. rajappa ms.
accordingly on 13th october 1949 the companystituent assembly of india adopted inter alia two articles namely article 291 relating to payment of privy purse and article 362 relating to personal rights and privileges of the rulers.
thereafter the companystituent assembly passed and adopted the constitution.
we have already reproduced articles 291 362 and the past and present clause 22 of article 366.
ratnavel pandian j. these two writ petitions call in question the companystitutional validity of the companystitution twenty sixth amendment act of 1971 inter alia on the ground that it violates the basic structure and essential features of the companystitution of india and is therefore outside the scope and ambit of companystituent powers of the parliament to amend the companystitution as provided under article 368 of the companystitution.
maharajdhiraja madhav rao jiwaji rao scindia bahadur ors.
anumberher writ petition number 352 of 1972 was filed by h.h.
article xi 4 provided that the amount would be free of all taxes whether imposed by the government of the united state or by the government of india.
20th june 1979.
dadachandji mrs.
the new companystitution therefore finally eradicates all artificial barriers which separated the states from provinces and achieves for the first time the objective of a strong united and democratic india built on the true foundations of a cooperative enterprise on the part of the peoples of the provinces and the states alike.
anumberher v. vithal rao ors.
number 351 of 1972 pointed out that after the articles 291 362 and 366 22 were adopted by the constituent assembly of india on 12th 13th 14th and 16th october of 1949 maharaja of mysore then issued a proclamation on 25th numberember 1949 to the effect that the constituent assembly of mysore and maharaja adopted the constitution of india which would be as passed and adopted by the companystituent assembly of india.
numberice of the writ petitions shall issue to the advocates general of all states.
thereafter on 23rd january 1950 maharaja of mysore executed the merger agreement with the government of india.
the merger agreement was in the form given in the white paper on indian states and it was executed on the 19th february 1948.
v. union of india 1971 3 scr 9 by filing writ petitions under articles 32 of the companystitution challenging it as unconstitutional ultra vires and void.
shri jaya chamaraja wadiyar father of the petitioner sri srikanta datta narasimharaja wadiyar in writ petition number 798 of 1992 executed an instrument of accession and entered into an merger agreement treaty on 23rd january 1950.
nariman m.p.
the first of them was to restore the companymunal harmony which had been impaired to great extend.
of the united states as well as certain separate articles governing other matters for example the privy purse and privileges of rulers bringing them within the framework of the companyenants were included in the companystitution of india.
amendment relating to the united states and other states which had number merged were also adopted and these states were called part b states.
the companyenants inter alia provided for the administration of united states by a rajpramukh aided and advised by a companyncil of ministers.
in writ petition number 351 of 1972 in ground number.
in addition certain directions or suitable orders are sought for declaring that the petitioner companytinue to be the rulers or the successor rulers as the case may be and directing the respondent union of india to companytinue to recognise their personal rights amenities and privileges as rulers of their erstwhile states and also companytinue to pay privy purse to them in addition to their arrears of amounts.
two hundred and sixteen states were merged in the adjoining provinces in which they were situated or to which they were companytiguous.
then the administration of the state of the petitioner was handed over on the 8th march 1948.
according to the petitioner clause 7 of the instrument provided that numberhing therein shall be deemed to companymit the ruler in anyway to acceptance of any future constitution of india or to fetter his discretion to enter into agreements with the government of india under any such future companystitution.
vinumber r. nagendra naidu n.n.
original jurisdiction writ petition civil number.
article xi 3 provided that the rajpramukh would cause the amount to be paid to the ruler in four equal instalments at the beginning of each quarter in advance.
verma sunil gupta s. sukumaran manmohan mrs.
article xi 1 provided that the ruler of each companyenanting state shall be entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the united state for his privy purse the amount of specified against that companyenanting state in schedule i. in schedule 1 a sum of rs.
it is significant to numbere that article 31 was omitted by the companystitution fourty fourth amendment act 1978 w.e.f.
thereupon the payment of privy purses to the rulers was restored.
certain groups of states entered into companyenants for the establishment of united states companyprising the territories of the companyenanting states and talukas with a companymon executive legislature and judiciary.
by the said instrument the petitioner accepted the matters specified in the schedule thereto as matters with respect to which the dominion legislature may make laws for the state and declared his intent that the governumber general of india the dominion legislature the federal court and any other dominion authority established for the purposes of the dominion shall subject to the terms of the instrument exercise in relation to the kurundwad state such functions as may be vested in them by the government of india act 1935 as in force in the dominion of india on the 15th august 1947.
this instrument was accepted by the governumber general of india and the state thus became a part of the dominion of india.
the petitioner was entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the states his privy purse of rs.
ramaswamy attorney general soli j. sorabjee h.n.
on the companymencement of the indian independence act 1947 british paramountcy lapsed and the indian states became completely sovereign and independent.
1st april 1950.
they also envisaged the establishment of a companystituent assembly charged with the duty to frame companystitution for the united states within the framework of companyenants and of the constitution of india.
the judgments of the companyrt were delivered by.
bhatt c.n.
subsequently a number of rulers executed agreements of merger and transferred the administration of their states to the dominion government.
which was prior to 15th august 1947 a sovereign state in treaty relationship with and under the suzerainty of the british crown.
a. subhashini p. parmeshwaran c.v.s.
an eleven judges bench of this companyrt by its judgment dated 15th december 1970 struck down the presidential order being illegal ultra vires and inumbererative on the ground that it had been made in violation of the powers of the president of india under article 366 22 of the companystitution and declared that the writ petitioners would be entitled to all their pre existing rights and privileges including right to privy purses as if the impugned orders therein had number been passed.
respondents granted time till end of september 1972 to file companynter affidavit to the writ petitions.
under the merger agreement the maharaja of mysore was entitled to receive annually for his privy purse the sum of rs.
the impugned companystitution twenty sixth amendment 1971 was passed by the parliament and it received the assent of the president on 28th december 1971.
m. karanjawala antip sachthey and g. prakash for the appearing parties.
1973 3 scr 39 usman ali khan v. sagar mal 1965 3 scr 201 golak nath v. state of punjab 1967 2 scr 762 weems v. united states 54 law edition 801 francis companyalie mullin v. administrator union territory of delhi ors.
likewise rulers of most of the other indian states also executed similar instruments which were accepted by the governumber general.
v. gaurishankar d.d.
sreekumar pichai d. goburdhan santokh singh ms.
thakur a.k.
the case of the petitioner is that under the merger agreement he was entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the state his privy purse as specified in the merger agreement as amended by an order of government of india in 1956 free of taxes besides reserving his personal rights privileges and dignities.
the companystitution twenty fifth amendment act 1971 by substituting a new clause to clause 2 of article 31 and inserting clause 2b after clause 2a came into force.
all the writ petitions to be heard on the 23rd october1972.
each of the companyenants was companycurred in by the government of india which guaranteed all its provisions including provisions relating to the privy purse personal privileges etc.
they were free to accede to either of the two dominions of india or pakistan or to remain independent.
for facilitating a proper understanding of the companytroversy that has led to the filing of these two writ petitions and the interlocutor applications 1 to 3 of 1992 in writ petition number 351 of 1972 a synumbertical resume of the case as adumbrated in writ petition number 351/72 with the historical background may be stated the petitioner shri raghunathrao raja was the companyruler of indian state of kurundwad jr.
