https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168719 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. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 11:56:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168719 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168719