The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars courts from hearing property disputes involving erstwhile princely states, reigniting the legal battle between the royal family of Jaipur and the Rajasthan government. This constitutional provision restricts judicial intervention in conflicts arising from pre-constitutional covenants between princely states and the Government of India.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih issued notice on a plea filed by Jaipur royals, including Rajmata Padmini Devi, Deputy CM Diya Kumari, and Sawai Padmanabh Singh, challenging a Rajasthan High Court ruling that barred civil courts from hearing their suits. These pertain to the iconic Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha) and several other heritage properties in Jaipur’s walled city.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the royals, argued that the original covenant was executed among five princes, with the Government of India only acting as a guarantor. He pointed out that this aspect was overlooked by the High Court, leading to the April 17 judgment that rejected the royal family’s claims.
Justice Mishra expressed concern that allowing such suits could open a floodgate of litigation from other former princely states. “Tomorrow you will say the entire Jaipur is yours,” he remarked. Salve clarified that the royals were not demanding properties vested in the state per the covenant and the Constitution, but merely seeking rightful possession where the state no longer had valid use.
The Rajasthan government, represented by Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, assured the Court it would maintain status quo and not take any provocative action until the matter is settled. The case revolves around the Town Hall, old police headquarters, Home Guard Directorate, and accountant’s office at Jaleb Chowk—prime heritage properties currently in government possession but claimed by the Jaipur royals.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing after eight weeks, setting the stage for what could become a precedent-setting verdict on princely state property rights in modern India.
