Constitutional recognition of rulers cannot abolish rulership or override guaranteed privileges; judicial review remains available

A constitutional recognition power under Article 366(22) was held limited to identifying a lawful Ruler according to law and custom; it could not be used by general order to abolish Rulership as a class or defeat the constitutional scheme in Articles 291 and 362. The impugned derecognition orders were therefore ultra vires and inoperative. Article 363 was held to bar only disputes arising directly out of pre-Constitution covenants, not judicial review of the President's constitutional power under Article 366(22). The challenge to the Presidential orders was accordingly maintainable, and the petitioners' constitutional and consequential rights, including privy purse and associated privileges, remained unaffected by the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the President had power under Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India to withdraw recognition from all Rulers by a general order, and whether such action was ultra vires and ineffective. (ii) Whether Article 363 of the Constitution of India barred judicial review of the challenge to the Presidential order and of the claims arising under Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the President had power under Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India to withdraw recognition from all Rulers by a general order, and whether such action was ultra vires and ineffective.

Analysis: Article 366(22) was construed as a provision identifying the Ruler of an Indian State for constitutional purposes and as requiring recognition of the person who answered that description according to law and custom. The majority held that the expression "for the time being" did not confer an unfettered power to abolish Rulership as a class or to deny recognition where a lawful Ruler or successor existed. The power to recognise was held to be limited and coupled with a constitutional duty, and an executive order aimed at defeating the constitutional scheme and the guarantees in Articles 291 and 362 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were held to be ultra vires Article 366(22) and inoperative.

Issue (ii): Whether Article 363 of the Constitution of India barred judicial review of the challenge to the Presidential order and of the claims arising under Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The majority held that Article 363 barred disputes that arose directly out of pre-Constitution covenants and agreements, but it did not bar adjudication on the scope of the President's constitutional power under Article 366(22). Article 291 was treated as a constitutional recognition of the privy-purse guarantee and Article 362 as the related assurance regarding personal rights and privileges; the challenge was therefore not excluded merely because those provisions had historical connection with the covenants. On this view, the court retained jurisdiction to test whether the executive had acted within the Constitution.

Conclusion: Article 363 did not bar the present challenge to the Presidential orders.

Final Conclusion: The majority held that the derecognition orders could not stand and that the petitioners remained entitled to their constitutional and consequential rights, including privy purse and associated privileges, as before the impugned orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional provision conferring recognition of Rulers cannot be used to abolish Rulership or nullify guarantees preserved by the Constitution, and Article 363 does not bar judicial review of the constitutional limits of that power.

---