Constitutional validity of ruler immunity upheld as pending civil suits require prior consent and ministerial signing does not create agency.

Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure was upheld as constitutionally valid because former Indian Rulers were treated as a distinct class with historically recognised privileges, and the immunity from civil suit had a real and substantial basis linked to the legislative object. The provision was construed to apply not only to the institution of a suit but also to its continuance, so a pending action against an ex-Ruler could not proceed without prior Central Government consent. The third defendant was also held not liable as an agent, since merely signing letters on behalf of the Military Secretary did not establish agency under the Contract Act. The suit therefore remained unsustainable against the surviving defendants.

---

---

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, so as to bar its continuance without prior consent of the Central Government. (iii) Whether the third defendant was liable as an agent of the ex-Ruler under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act.

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 special protection accorded to former Indian Rulers was held to rest on historical facts and the constitutional recognition of covenants, privileges, rights and dignities preserved under the Constitution. The Court treated former Rulers as a distinct class and held that immunity from civil suit formed part of the protected privileges. The classification was found to have a real and substantial basis and a direct relation to the legislative object.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and Section 87-B was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 87-B applied to a suit already pending when it was enacted, so as to bar its continuance without prior consent of the Central Government.

Analysis: The Court construed the word "sued" broadly to cover not only the institution of a suit but also its continuance while pending. On that construction, the statutory requirement of prior consent applied to pending proceedings as well, and the absence of consent rendered the suit incompetent against the former Ruler.

Conclusion: Section 87-B applied to the pending suit and the claim against the ex-Ruler was not maintainable without consent.

Issue (iii): Whether the third defendant was liable as an agent of the ex-Ruler under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act.

Analysis: The third defendant was found to have merely signed letters on behalf of the Military Secretary and not to have acted as an agent of the ex-Ruler. The Court held that such ministerial signing did not establish agency for the purpose of fastening liability.

Conclusion: The third defendant was not liable as an agent.

Final Conclusion: The suit was unsustainable against all the remaining defendants, and the dismissal of the action was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory immunity from civil suit for former Indian Rulers, founded on constitutional recognition of their historical privileges, is not discriminatory under Article 14, and the word "sued" includes the continuance of a pending suit as well as its institution.

---