1. Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 87B, Code of Civil Procedure, which requires Central Government sanction to sue a Ruler of a former Indian State for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th March, 1964.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ
Narottam Kishore Deb Varma and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 87 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate, for Petitioners; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 2.
Advocates:
D.N.MUKHERJI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA
D.N.MUKHERJI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA
Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring Central Government sanction to sue Rulers of former Indian States, is constitutionally valid as it is based on historical covenants and reasonable restrictions in the public interest to honor assurances given during the merger of states.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 86 and 87B - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 362 - Suit against Ruler of a former Indian State - Requirement of prior sanction of Central Government - Validity of Section 87B challenged - It is held that the protection afforded to Rulers of former Indian States is based on historical covenants and agreements entered into during the merger of states with the Union - Such discrimination is justified by the legislative background and the necessity of honoring assurances given to the Rulers - The restriction on the fundamental right to property is reasonable and in the interest of the general public. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Equality before law - Rulers of former Indian States form a class by themselves - Special treatment given to them is not based on unconstitutional discrimination. (Para 10)
(C) Exercise of power to grant sanction - Authority should ordinarily allow sanction for genuine disputes that are prima facie triable in a court of law to prevent discontent, while refusing sanction for frivolous claims. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, claiming maintenance from a Ruler of a former Indian State, sought to file a suit. The Central Government refused to grant the mandatory sanction required under Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the said section, alleging it violated the rights to equality and property under the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
Section 87B is valid. The privilege of exemption from civil jurisdiction is rooted in covenants and agreements made during the political assimilation of former Indian States. The restriction is reasonable given the historical context and the objective of national integration.
Issues: Whether Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires prior sanction of the Central Government to sue a Ruler of a former Indian State, is ultra vires the Constitution for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the special status of Rulers of former Indian States is justified by the historical and legislative background, specifically the guarantees provided under covenants during the merger process. Such provisions are reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public to ensure the validity of agreements that facilitated the unification of the country.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Section 87B, Code of Civil Procedure is ultra vires as it contravenes Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The exemption granted to former Rulers is justified by historical covenants and agreements, making the restriction on fundamental rights reasonable and in the public interest. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Section 87B, Code of Civil Procedure is constitutional as the special treatment of former Rulers is based on reasonable classification justified by historical and legislative backgrounds. (Para 10 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. Is Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure valid under Article 14?
Yes. Former Rulers of Indian States form a distinct class, and the special treatment provided by Section 87B is based on a reasonable classification justified by historical and legislative backgrounds. (Para 5 , 10 )
7. Does the requirement of Central Government sanction to sue a former Ruler violate Article 19(1)(f)?
No. The restriction is reasonable and in the public interest, as it gives effect to assurances and covenants entered into between the Central Government and former Rulers during political assimilation. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What is the legal effect of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure?
It extends the protections afforded to foreign Rulers under Section 86 to Rulers of former Indian States, making the prior sanction of the Central Government a condition precedent to filing a suit. (Para 6 , 7 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : This is a writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by which the eight petitioners challenged the validity of S. 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. These petitioners claim that they and respondent No. 2. His Highness Maharaja Kirit Vikram Kishore Deb Varma, are members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Under a family custom which it is alleged, has prevailed in this family for centuries, the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties belonging to the family are held by a single individual and the others members of the family are entitled to maintenance according to the status of the family with the right to succession to the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties under the general rules of succession which prevails and which is not inconsistent with the family custom. The head of the family was, by family custom, called the Chief and he was chosen from among the members of the Ruling Deb Barban family and used to the installed on the Gaddi or Thorne. The petitioners further alleged that the Ruler when so chosen and installed held the State and Zamindari as a life tenant subject to the usual charges for maintenance of the members of the Ruling Family.
2. In course of time, the maintenance allowance of the members of the Ruling Family came to be fixed arbitrarily by the Rulers without any regard to their status and their legitimate needs, and that led to discontent among them which resulted in a serious agitation raised by them during the lifetime of the late Maharaja Bir Bikram. In consequence, at the time of Regency of Her Highness Rajmata during the minority of the last Ruler Maharaja Kirit Bikram, a Committee was appointed on the 20th June 1949 to consider the question of allowances payable to the members of the Ruling Family. However before the Committee could submit its report, the State of Tripura merged with and became part of India and was constituted into a separate Province under the Chief Commissioner.
3. After merger, the then Chief Commissioner Mr. Hazra submitted a proposal to the Ministry of States on the 12th April 1951 recommending a revision of allowances paid to the maintenance-holders. The Ministry of States did not accept this proposal and refused to make any increase in the total expenditure on the allowances to the maintenance-holders. This order was passed on the 23rd May 1951. Later, the then officiating Chief Commissioner Maj. Chatterjee stopped the maintenance allowances paid to some of the maintenance-holders without justification and that led to the appointment of another Committee to go into the matter; but the Committee could never function with the result that the condition of the majority of the maintenance-holders grew worse day by day. That is why the present eight petitioners desire to file a suit against respondent No. 2 for appropriate reliefs. They want to implead the Union of India also to that suit, because it is their case that either the Ruler or the Union of India is responsible to pay them appropriate and adequate maintenance allowance.
4. Before filing a suit in a competent court of law against respondent No. 2, the petitioners are required to obtain the sanction of the Union Government under S. 87B, C.P.C., as respondent No. 2 is a Ruler of a former Indian State within the meaning of the said section. A request made by the petitioners for such sanction was rejected by the Central Government. That is how the present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the said section. The petitioners contend that the said section is ultra vires, because it contravenes Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and as such, the condition precedent prescribed by it which requires the previous sanction of the Central Government before filing a suit against the Ruler of an Indian State therein mentioned, is invalid and inoperative. That is the genesis of the present writ petition.
