Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc
Article 363 — Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc
- Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor Governments was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument. (2) In this article—
-
(a) “Indian State” means any territory recognised before the commencement of this Constitution by His Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as being such a State; and
-
(b) “Ruler” includes the Prince, Chief or other person recognised before such commencement by His Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as the Ruler of any Indian State. 363A. Recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States to cease and privy purses to be abolished.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force—
-
(a) 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 (Twentysixth 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.]
Plain English Summary
This article states that courts in India cannot decide legal disputes that arise from old treaties or agreements made by rulers of Indian States before the Constitution came into effect. It also clarifies that the rights and financial benefits (privy purses) associated with these past arrangements are extinguished.
Key Points
- Courts do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising from treaties, agreements, covenants, etc., entered into by a Ruler of an Indian State before the Constitution started.
- This bar applies to disputes concerning rights or obligations related to such historical instruments.
- Article 363A mandates that rulers recognized before the 1971 amendment cease to be recognized as such and their privy purses are abolished.
Why It Matters
It establishes a clear boundary, preventing courts from revisiting old international or historical agreements made under previous political structures, thereby settling these matters outside the regular judicial system.
Landmark Judgements
No major landmark judgements.