Civil suit immunity for former Rulers upheld; pending proceedings needed Central Government consent, and no agency was established.

Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure was upheld as a valid classification for former Indian Rulers because the immunity from civil suit reflected historical and constitutional assurances tied to their personal rights, privileges and dignities, and therefore did not violate Article 14. The word "sued" was construed to include not only institution of a suit but also its continuance, so a pending action against an ex-Ruler could not proceed without the Central Government's consent after the provision came into force. The third defendant was not treated as an agent of the ex-Ruler under section 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act, as his role was confined to a ministerial act of signing letters.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure was unconstitutional as discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether section 87-B applied to a suit already pending when it was enacted and barred its continuation without the Central Government's consent; (iii) whether the third defendant could be held liable as agent of the ex-Ruler under section 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issue (i): whether section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure was unconstitutional as discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The protection given to former Indian Rulers was traced to the constitutional assurance respecting their personal rights, privileges and dignities, and to the historical position arising from integration of the States. The classification of ex-Rulers was treated as resting on real and substantial distinctions having a direct relation to the object of preserving those assurances. Immunity from civil suit was held to fall within the expression of privileges.

Conclusion: Section 87-B was not violative of Article 14 and was valid.

Issue (ii): whether section 87-B applied to a suit already pending when it was enacted and barred its continuation without the Central Government's consent.

Analysis: The word "sued" was held to cover not merely the institution of a suit but its continuance throughout the pendency of the proceeding. On that construction, consent of the Central Government was necessary not only for filing but also for maintaining the suit against the ex-Ruler after the provision came into force. The provision was therefore applied to pending proceedings by its own language.

Conclusion: The pending suit against the ex-Ruler could not be maintained without the Central Government's consent.

Issue (iii): whether the third defendant could be held liable as agent of the ex-Ruler under section 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The third defendant's role was confined to signing letters for the Military Secretary. That was treated as a ministerial act performed on behalf of the Military Secretary and not as agency for the ex-Ruler. The basis for invoking section 230(3) was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The third defendant was not liable as agent of the ex-Ruler.

Final Conclusion: The suit was rightly dismissed, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory immunity from civil suit granted to former Indian Rulers is a valid classification based on historical and constitutional assurances, and the expression "sued" includes the continuation of a pending suit, so consent of the Central Government is necessary for maintaining such proceedings.

---