Article 363 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🇮🇳 Article 363 of the Constitution of India
Topic: Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.
(Found in Part XXI – Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions)
🔹 Text of Article 363 (Simplified):
Clause (1):
The courts shall not have jurisdiction over any dispute:
That arises from a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or other similar instrument made or executed before the commencement of the Constitution with the rulers of Indian States.
⚠️ Even if such treaties or agreements were recognized under any law, the courts cannot decide upon such matters.
Clause (2):
If there's a question whether a treaty or agreement falls under this Article, the President of India has the exclusive authority to decide that.
🧾 Purpose of Article 363:
Designed to prevent legal challenges by former rulers of princely states regarding:
Their privileges,
Titles,
Pensions (privy purses), etc.
Ensures that integration of princely states into India remains legally unchallengeable in court.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 363:
🔹 1. Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530
Facts: Challenged the abolition of privy purses and derecognition of rulers (via Presidential order under Article 366(22)).
Held (Majority view):
The abolition violated Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Article 363 does not bar judicial review when constitutional rights are affected.
Judicial review is not excluded where the Constitution itself is violated.
🔹 2. H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530
Often cited together with the above.
Supreme Court clarified the limits of Article 363:
Courts can review actions of the government that violate fundamental rights even if those actions relate to pre-Constitution agreements.
🔹 3. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564
Though not directly on Article 363, it emphasized that Constitutional protections override earlier arrangements and cannot be abrogated arbitrarily.
✅ Key Features of Article 363:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Pre-Constitution treaties and agreements |
| Courts' Role | Barred from adjudicating such disputes |
| Exception | If constitutional provisions (like fundamental rights) are violated |
| Final Authority | President of India decides scope of application |
📌 Context: Princely States & Article 363
Before 1947, 565 princely states existed with their own rulers.
They signed Instruments of Accession with the Indian Union.
Article 363 ensured that post-accession issues (e.g., payment of privy purses, official recognition of rulers) remained outside judicial purview.
🧭 Related Articles:
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| 366(22) | Definition of "Ruler" (for legal and constitutional use) |
| 291 | Privy purse payments (now abolished) |
| 362 | Obligations to former rulers (also now repealed) |
| 363 | Court bar on treaty-related disputes |
📜 42nd & 26th Constitutional Amendments:
26th Amendment (1971):
Abolished privy purses and derecognized rulers.
Removed Articles 291 and 362.
Impact: Reinforced that former rulers’ privileges were ended and Article 363 prevented legal challenges to these political decisions.
🔚 Conclusion:
Article 363 was a transitional provision to prevent former princely rulers from using courts to assert claims based on pre-constitutional treaties.
However, courts retain jurisdiction if such actions violate constitutional provisions, especially fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments