Why Kerala High Court upheld a ‘royal’ allowance from 1806 despite abolition of privy purses

The Kerala High Court clarified that the 26th amendment abolished only privy purses and rights directly connected with them. (Image enhanced using AI)

Background

• The writ petition was instituted by one Sanoop V V, a resident of Kozhikode, who claimed to be a devotee of Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and an alumnus of Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College.
• Through the petition, he questioned an order passed by the district collector, Kozhikode, granting Malikhana in favour of the Zamorin family.
• According to the petitioner, Malikhana was a hereditary political pension granted during the British era and stood abolished by the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, which did away with privy purses and royal privileges.
• He contended that any continuation of such allowance after 1971 was unconstitutional.
• The petitioner further alleged that P K Kerala Varma Raja, a senior member of the Zamorin family who had staked a claim to receive the allowance, was financially delinquent.
• The petitioner sought quashing of the collector’s order and directions restraining the claimant from exercising any authority over Devaswoms or educational institutions.

Observations

• The Article 363 excludes the jurisdiction of courts in disputes arising out of treaties, covenants or agreements entered into by erstwhile rulers before the commencement of the Constitution.
• “Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance are distinct and separate claims and operate in different spheres. We are of the considered opinion that the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971, would never affect a claim of a ruler of an Indian State based on a Covenant, agreement or a treaty,”, the bench said adding that Article 363 continues to recognise rights flowing from historical covenants even after the abolition of privy purses.
• The court clarified that the 26th amendment abolished only privy purses and rights directly connected with them.
• After examining the pleadings and constitutional scheme, the high court held that the writ petition was barred by Article 363 of the Constitution.
• On the issue of locus standi, the court was categorical that the petitioner had failed to establish any sufficient legal interest.
• “The petitioner has failed to show that he had sufficient interest in the subject matter of the writ petition,” the bench held.
• It noted that a devotee or alumnus could not invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge a hereditary allowance paid to members of a royal family on the basis of an 1806 covenant.
• The court also rejected the plea for a writ of prohibition restraining the claimant from exercising authority over temples or educational institutions.
• It observed that such an extraordinary remedy could be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, which were wholly absent in the present case.
• The writ petition not maintainable, barred by the Constitution, and lacking in bona fides, the high court said.
• It dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 10,000, directing the amount to be paid to its mediation centre within 30 days.

Arguments

• The petitioner argued that Malikhana was indistinguishable from a privy purse or hereditary political pension, and therefore stood extinguished by the 26th Constitutional amendment in 1971.
• He urged the court to hold that no individual could claim or continue such benefits in post-Constitution India.
• Stressing the alleged financial and legal antecedents of the claimant, the petitioner sought an independent enquiry before recognising any right flowing from the impugned order.
• The Zamorin family and other respondents strongly opposed the plea, contending that the writ petition was a clear abuse of process.
• They asserted that Malikhana was not a privy purse but a distinct allowance arising from a historical covenant executed in 1806 between the Zamorin Raja and the British government.
• It was argued that Article 363 of the Constitution creates an absolute bar on courts entertaining disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, covenants or agreements entered into by rulers of Indian States.
• The respondents further pointed out that Malikhana had continued to be paid for over five decades even after the 26th amendment, and that the Union of India remained the disbursing authority.
• They also questioned the petitioner’s locus standi, emphasising that he was neither a member of the Zamorin family nor a rival claimant.