Privy Purse Abolition And Padmanabha Swamy Temple Judgment

The Supreme Court, in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case, has dealt with the effect of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 - which abolished privy purses- on the term 'Ruler of Travancore' in proviso to Section 18(2) of TCHRI Act. The court held that the constitutional abolition, did not in any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore.This piece intends to examine the history and scope of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971.The Failed Amendment Bill and Presidential Order of 1970On May 14, 1970, the then Finance Minister, Y.B. Chavan, introduced the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970 for abolition of privy purse, privileges etc. conferred under Articles 291, 362 and 366(22). Though it was passed by Lok Sabha, the Bill failed in the Rajya Sabha to reach the requisite majority of not less than two-third members present as required by Article 368 and voting. The President of India, thereafter, invoking his powers under clause (22) of Article 366 of the Constitution, signed an Order withdrawing recognition of all the Rulers in the country en masse. This Presidential Order derecognising the Rulers was questioned in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India before the Supreme Court. An eleven-Judge Bench struck down the Presidential Order being illegal, ultra vires and inoperative on the ground that it had been made in violation of the powers of the President of India under Article 366(22) of the Constitution and declared that the writ petitioners would be entitled to all their pre-existing rights and privileges including right to privy purses as if the impugned orders therein had not been passed. The 26th AmendmentThe amendment bill was moved by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and was passed by both the houses and became an Act later. In the Statement of Object and Reasons of the Bill, it was stated that "the concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order". The amendment, in fact, made four changes to the then existing Constitution. It deleted Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution, inserted a new Article 363A and also amends Article 366.Deleted Articles 291 and 362Art.291 dealt with payment of Privy Purse sums of Rulers whereas Article 362 with rights and Privileges of rulers of Indian States. Article 362 mandated the executive and legislature to give due regard to the guarantee or assurance given under any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in Article 291 with respect to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State. Both these Articles ceased to exist after 26th Amendment.Amended Article (366(22))The 26th Amendment changed the definition of Ruler as follows: "Ruler" means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler.Prior to this amendment, the definition of 'Ruler' included the successor of any person who was recognized as the Ruler.The amendment deleted the 'successorship' of the status of ruler.Insertion of Article 363AThe 26th Amendment also inserted Article 363A to terminate expressly the recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purses. The text of the Article reads as follows:The Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;(b) on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse.".In short, the amendment derecognized the titles such as 'Ruler' and also abolished the privy purse and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse.SC Rejected Challenge Against 26th AmendmentSri Raghunathrao Raja, who was the Co-Ruler of Indian State of Kurundwad, challenged the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act of 1971 on the ground that it violates the basic...

Privy Purse Abolition And Padmanabha Swamy Temple Judgment

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Privy Purse Abolition And Padmanabha Swamy Temple Judgment

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers