Prior sanction requirement for suits against former Indian State rulers upheld as a valid, non-arbitrary limitation under constitutional law.

The Supreme Court upheld section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires prior Central Government sanction before a suit may be filed against a Ruler of a former Indian State. It traced the protection under sections 86 and 87B to historical covenants with Indian State rulers and their constitutional continuation after merger, and held that ex-Rulers formed a distinct class justified by historical necessity and legislative continuity. The sanction requirement was treated as a valid limitation linked to those assurances, not an arbitrary or unreasonable burden. The constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) therefore failed, and section 87B was held valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires prior sanction of the Central Government before a suit can be instituted against a Ruler of a former Indian State, is unconstitutional as violating Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The protection afforded by sections 86 and 87B was traced to the historical arrangements and covenants made with the rulers of Indian States, and to the constitutional continuance of those assurances after merger. The special treatment was held to rest on a distinct class of ex-Rulers and on considerations of historical necessity and legislative continuity. The restriction on instituting suit without prior sanction was therefore treated as a justified limitation connected with those assurances and not as an arbitrary or unreasonable burden on the petitioners' rights.

Conclusion: Section 87B was held to be valid and not violative of Article 19(1)(f); the challenge failed.

---