The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Rajasthan government on a plea by members of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family seeking repossession of the historic Town Hall in Jaipur, presently in the State’s possession but lying unused.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih on Monday (June 2) issued notice on the royal family ‘s challenge to the Rajasthan High Court’s order that had dismissed their civil suit on the ground that the matter was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution.
Appearing for the royal family, senior advocate Harish Salve argued that the case involves important constitutional issues, including the rights of former rulers post the 26th constitution amendment, and the judicial recourse available in disputes arising from Covenant of Merger entered into between erstwhile Royal families in 1949 for the formation of United State of Rajasthan prior to the coming into force of the constitution of India,
The Town Hall, Salve contended, was one of the several properties identified through collateral letters to the 1949 Covenant of Merger as private property of Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II, who was appointed Rajpramukh of the newly formed United State of Rajasthan. Though the property was made available to the government for official use, ownership was never transferred, Salve told the court.
The Court was told that while the State ceased to use the property in 2001, the erstwhile Jaipur royal family made repeated representations for its return. Thereafter, the building is in neglect, falling into despair and marked for commercial repurposing, the royal family has said, seeking possession, injunction, and mesne profits.
The trial court had earlier dismissed the State’s plea under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the dispute raised civil property claims rather than questions of the enforcement of the 1949 covenant. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed this in April 2025, invoking Article 363 to oust jurisdiction, prompting the present appeal before the top court.
Salve told the court that Article 363, which bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising from pre-Constitutional covenants, cannot act as a blanket bar in such civil matters, especially after Article 362 was repealed by the 26th Amendment of the Constitution in 1971.
“Whether 363 really operates after the deletion of 362. They were part of a package. Whether 363 can survive as a pure ouster clause is something that has to be considered,” Salve said.
The senior advocate clarified that the suit concerns only private property rights, and does not involve broader issues of merger, accession, or sovereignty.
“Filing a suit and having a right are two very different things,” Salve said, responding to the court’s concern that the case may open floodgates for similar claims from other former princely families in Rajasthan.
The Bench expressed reservations about the implications of accepting the petitioners’ arguments, observing, “Then all rulers will start claiming in Rajasthan if your argument is accepted? Princely states will be free? Property of princely states will be their own property now?”
The Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan opposed any interim relief sought by the petitioner royal family and requested time to respond.
Taking note of the State’s assurance that it would not precipitate the matter, and not granting the interim relief sought by the royal family, the court observed, “The state shall respect the pendency of the SLP.” The court posted the matter for further hearing after eight weeks.