MADHAV JIWAJI RAO SCINDIA V. UNION OF INDIA 1970

Abstract

This is a case analysis of the famous H.H. Mahara Jadilla Jamadavra Ojiba Jirao Cindia Bahadur in Gwariel and Ors. Against the Dominion of India and Anne. Commonly referred to as the secret purse case, the special privileges granted to traditional rulers were discussed in this regard.

The case was summarized and analyzed under the following headings: Case Summary, Case Related Matters, Plaintiffs and Defendants Claims, Legal Analysis, Conclusions, Proposals, and Financial References. Consider the provisions of the Constitution, such as Articles 366, 291, 362, and 31. Of the Indian Constitution.

Controversy continues as to whether the private portfolio is a matter of sovereignty or simply an expression of government goodwill or will. The bench of 11 Supreme Court judges has decided to approve privileges in the form of individual scholarships for leaders.

Background

More than 8% of pre-independence India and 28% of the Indian population were privately owned. After India's independence, the private state was invited to join or maintain independence in India or Pakistan. The state was then integrated into the Domination of India.

The rulers of the private state renounced all authority over their territory. More than 562 private states joined India, leading to the formation of the Domination of India. In exchange, the kings/princes kings, Governor-General/princesbeforeGovernor-General / princes under these indigenous peoples were promised to pay a certain amount and privileges. The amount paid is known as the "secret wallet".

Therefore, this case is also called a Privy Purse Case

Payment of secret bags sine, byin accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, Articles 291 and 362. The concept of secret bags is part 3 of the preamble and the Constitution. Furthermore, the Privy Purse idea did not work for the nascent independent economy.

Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, firmly demanded the abolition of the private stock exchange. A proposal to abolish the private stock exchange system was presented to Parliament in 1970. It was passed by the Lok Sabha but was defeated by Rajya Sabha by only one vote.

After some time, the President of India V.V Giri signed the document withdrawing the consent of all the leaders. The bill was passed and all administrative awards and personal wallets were gone. So, since the 26th Amendment of the Constitution of India, the Privy Council has been abolished and Sections 291 and 362 have been omitted.

Facts

The other petitions are identical except for some details specific to a particular ruler but not important to the discussion of the issues involved.

This Order was challenged by the Supreme Court. Written by article 32 of the Constitution, these petitions were launched by some leaders as a test case to raise doubts.

They call for action, a petition declaring an executive decree unconstitutional, malicious, authoritative and invalid, and action calling for the maintenance of personal portfolios and privileges. The ruler of Gwariel acceded to the throne of Gwariel on July 16, 1961, upon the death of his father.

On August 15, 19 7, his father signed an Instrument of State Accession for the then established Dominion of India, which was approved by the Governor-GeneralGovernor General of India the next day. This membership certificate is similar to that signed by other Regents on different dates.

To exercise the powers conferred on him by Article 366 (22) of the Constitution, the President, at the date of this decree, His Highness Maharajadi Raja Madab Lao Jiwaji Lao Cindia Bahadur is the ruler of Gabriel.

Article 366 (22)

A sovereign is a prince, head of state or prince approved by the President at any time prior to the entry into force of Article 26 of the amendment. Constitution 1971. It means other people. Sovereign of the State of India, or a person recognized by the President as his successor at any time before the commencement.

Judgement

The court ruled that section 366(22) was a provision defining the basis of additional sovereign rights under sections 362 and 291. This section did not authorize the president to abolish the "controlling" class.

This will further prevent the aforementioned permissions from working. The phrase "temporary" does not mean that the president has the power to temporarily recognize a person as a leader. In addition, the "most important" accusations made by the president by those interviewed on the matter were fiercely criticized by the judges. The court ruled that there was no trace of colonial rule after the constitution came into force.

Since these rulers are also recognized as state citizens, it is inappropriate for the government to claim that the order is a "staction, act" and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The state acts against the government of its citizens.

Defendants argued that Article 291 was not an individual right, but merely a procedural provision regarding the source and method of payment, but the court dismissed this interpretation and the word "tax" is a mandatory payment.

Insisted that it meant that. Not paying in a personal wallet is an infringement of property rights set out in Article 31 and justifies such a claim under Article 32 [VN Shukla, Constitution of India, (13th Edition)). 2017), 1070. ].

The second question concerns Article 363, which excludes the jurisdiction of all judges in matters of constitutional obligations "on" such as agreements and agreements. The court ruled that Article 362 had the main purpose of the contract, but not the same for Article 291 which simply called it a procedural effect. The president has exceeded the authority given to him by Article 366 (22). Therefore, bar 363 does not apply.

Conclusion

As a result, the majority of the courts ruled that the Executive Order of September 6, 1970 was unconstitutional because it violated the court's provisions by law. 362, 291, and 366, paragraph 22. They admitted that the president exceeded his authority under Article 366 (22), which violated the fundamental rights of the "ruler."

Regarding the second question, the judge considered that Article 261 does not exclude the application because Article 261 deals with the agreement, but they do not have a direct and dominant relationship with it. The order was declared illegal and the ruler regained his original privileges.