'Privy Purse Privileges To Princely Rulers Can't Be Claimed As Legal Rights' : Supreme Court Rejects Mizo Chiefs' Claim

The Supreme Court today(March 11) dismissed a writ petition filed by the Mizo Chief Council claiming that the Union of India had acquired the lands of tribal chieftains of the erstwhile Lushai Hills district(present-day State of Mizoram) without paying due compensation.While the Court recognised that their claims arose when the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, the chiefs failed to establish any violation of their rights.They had also claimed that they stood on equal footing with rulers of the erstwhile Princely States. But the Court rejected this on the grounds that privy purposes were a result of pre-constitutional political and contractual arrangements negotiated between the rulers and the government. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said: "However, this assertion, much like its above claims, is entirely devoid of any legal basis and thereby merits outright rejection. The privy purses and other privileges granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Princely States were the direct outcome of specific, pre-constitutional political and contractual arrangements negotiated between those rulers and the Government. Consequently, it would be legally flawed to equate and elevate these entitlements to the status of a right, which all erstwhile rulers were constitutionally bestowed upon. Such political arrangements cannot be claimed as a matter of a legally enforceable right, much less a fundamental right."To lay out the context, Mizo society was traditionally governed by the Mizo Chieftainship system, where chiefs held the territory called 'Ram'. The chiefs exercised full control over 'Ram' and allotted farmlands from his to the villagers, and in return, he was entitled to receive a portion of the annual agricultural produce, primarily paddy ('Fathang').It was then taken over by the British, who retained the chieftain administration. Post-independence, the Lushai Hills district was administered as a part of Assam. Under the Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief's Rights) Act, 1954, it was renamed the Mizo District. With this legislation, the State acquired the power to transfer and vest in itself the land in turn of compensation, which was notified in 1955. A total of Rs. 14,78, 980 was paid to the chiefs as compensation. The chiefs filed the writ petition in 2014, alleging that they were paid compensation limited to the Fathang, and it did not include the value of the lands. They argued that Mizo Chiefs stood on equal footing with the rulers of the erstwhile Princely States. While the Princely rulers across the country were systematically integrated into the Union with the solemn guarantee of privy purses, Mizo chiefs were singled out.What did the Supreme Court say?The bench first went into the issue of whether the writ petition could be dismissed on grounds of six decades of delay. It dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches and said that when it comes to violations of fundamental rights, a rigid and mechanical application of it would serve to perpetuate historical wrongs and systematic inequalities. A context-specific and flexible approach to laches ensures that the historical realities and practical impediments faced by litigants are duly considered in such cases. The bench relied on cases such as the Tilokchand and Motichand & Ors v. H.B. Munshi & Anr(2014) and Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A(2024) on this approach."When this Court is confronted with claims that are inextricably linked to notions of historical wrong or systemic injustice, the judicial scales must largely tilt in favour of granting access to the court. The ultimate adjudication on the merits may or may not find the substantive law to be in favour of a petitioner. However, the very act of allowing these claims to be heard and deliberated upon is an essential aspect of constitutional recognition. It ensures that the procedural threshold of laches does not become an insurmountable wall."The Court said that in such cases, the adequacy of explanation for the delay constitutes the paramount consideration when determining whether the Article 32 petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. "Stated differently, the operative test is not one of 'unreasonable delay' but of 'unexplained delay'. This principle is fortified by the fact that, even in instances where this Court has declined relief to prevent the disruption of crystallised third-party rights, such as in Aflatoon (supra) and others, the foundational premise for dismissal was a petitioner's failure to furnish a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the delay."Applying the analysis, the Court concluded that while the delay is inordinate, it was not inclined to dismiss the petition solely on this ground. This is because of the various mitigating factors, such as the region's unique and tumultuous nature, the records which had indicated hopes for amicable settlements, which were never outrightly...

'Privy Purse Privileges To Princely Rulers Can't Be Claimed As Legal Rights' : Supreme Court Rejects Mizo Chiefs' Claim

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court rejected the argument of Mizo Chiefs that they were at par with the other princely rulers and hence entitled to privy purse benefits.

Tags