Kerala High Court Upholds Malikhana Allowance for Zamorin Family, Citing Constitutional Bar Under Article 363

Introduction

In a significant ruling that reinforces the constitutional limits on judicial intervention in historical agreements, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin royal family. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, held that disputes over such allowances arising from pre-Constitution covenants are barred under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Sanoop V.V., who identified himself as a devotee of the Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and an alumnus of Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College, questioned the entitlement of P.K. Kerala Varma, the current Zamorin Raja, to the allowance. He argued that it was abolished by the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, and that the respondent was unfit due to financial liabilities. The court not only rejected these claims but also found the petitioner lacked locus standi, dismissing the petition with costs of ₹10,000 to the High Court Mediation Centre. This decision underscores the distinction between Malikhana and privy purses, preserving certain historical entitlements despite modern constitutional changes.

The case, titled Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (WP(C) No. 39974 of 2025), was decided on January 9, 2026, and cited as, It highlights ongoing tensions between preserving royal traditions and contemporary legal scrutiny, particularly in Kerala's culturally rich landscape where the Zamorin family holds ceremonial roles in temples and education.

Case Background

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut, historically known as the Samoothiri, was a prominent ruler in the Malabar region, whose lineage traces back centuries. Following India's independence and the integration of princely states, the family's political authority diminished, but certain privileges, including the Malikhana allowance—a form of hereditary compensation originally granted by the British for ceded territories—persisted. This allowance, rooted in a 1806 covenant between the Zamorin family and the East India Company, has been disbursed by the Union of India to various family members designated as "sthanees" (branches of the royal line).

The dispute arose from an order dated June 26, 2025, issued by the Kozhikode District Collector (Ext. P6), granting Malikhana to the late K.C. Ramachandran Raja, with P.K. Kerala Varma (the 8th respondent) claiming succession as the current Zamorin Raja. The petitioner filed the writ under Article 226, seeking to quash this order and restrain the respondent from exercising authority over associated temples and educational institutions. He submitted a representation (Ext. P7) on October 19, 2025, highlighting the respondent's alleged financial improprieties.

Sanoop V.V. portrayed himself as a guardian of public interest, emphasizing his connections to institutions linked to the Zamorin Kovilakam. The Zamorin family traditionally serves as hereditary trustees for temples under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, overseeing rituals, staff appointments, and property management, albeit under state supervision like that of the Malabar Devaswom Board. In education, the family chairs trusts for institutions such as Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College and affiliates with the University of Calicut, ensuring cultural continuity.

The petitioner's grievances centered on the respondent's role as Managing Director of Narniat Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., which allegedly owed ₹82.95 crores to the State Bank of India, as evidenced by proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Madras High Court (Exts. P1-P3). Additionally, arrest memos from the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (Exts. P4-P5) were cited to argue unfitness under Section 45 of the 1951 Act, which disqualifies trustees with criminal or financial delinquency. The timeline included the petition's filing in 2025, hearings on November 24, 2025, and the judgment in early 2026, amid broader family claims for enhancement of the allowance, as noted in a prior appeal (W.A. No. 83/2024).

The main legal questions were: (1) Is the writ maintainable given Article 363's bar on disputes from pre-Constitution treaties? (2) Does the petitioner have locus standi? (3) Was Malikhana abolished by the 26th Amendment, and is the respondent disqualified from hereditary roles?

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, led by C.R. Sivakumar, argued that Malikhana constituted a "hereditary political pension" akin to privy purses, abolished by the 1971 Amendment, which omitted Articles 291 and 362 and inserted Article 363A extinguishing such rights. They contended that continuing payments violated constitutional equality and public funds' sanctity, especially given the respondent's liabilities. The petitioner sought declarations that the allowance was invalid, an inquiry into the respondent's antecedents, and a writ of prohibition barring him from temple and institutional roles. Emphasizing fiduciary duties, they invoked Section 45 of the 1951 Act, alleging prior imprisonments and debts rendered him unfit, potentially harming temple deities' interests and educational integrity.

In response, the 8th respondent's counsel, K.P. Sudheer, filed a counter-affidavit asserting the petition's non-maintainability under Article 363, which prohibits courts from adjudicating disputes from pre-Constitution covenants involving Indian State rulers and the Dominion Government. They distinguished Malikhana as compensation under the 1806 covenant, not a privy purse, with payments continuing post-1971 by the Union of India to family sthanees, including ₹15,000 annually to the respondent (Ext. R8(a)). The respondent highlighted a prior Division Bench ruling (Ext. R8(b)) directing enhancement consideration, underscoring the allowance's legitimacy. On locus standi, they argued the petitioner, an outsider without family ties or rival claims, lacked personal interest, rendering it a mala fide public interest litigation. Financial allegations were refuted: the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed claims (Ext. R8(c)), and arrests were quashed in prior writs. The respondent portrayed himself as a reputable entrepreneur, denying any disqualification. Other respondents, including the State and boards, supported maintainability issues, noting the Union of India's absence as a party further weakened the petition.

The petitioner replied, denying mala fides and reiterating transparency needs for public-funded roles. Hearings focused on Article 363's non obstante clause and the Amendment's scope, with the court examining historical documents and precedents.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning pivoted on Article 363, which states: "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution... neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant... entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State..." The Bench held the 1806 covenant qualified, barring scrutiny of Malikhana entitlements, as payments stemmed from it and continued via the Union.

Crucially, the court distinguished Malikhana from privy purses. The 26th Amendment targeted Article 291's privy purse provisions, inserting Article 363A to derecognize rulers and abolish such payments. However, it retained Article 363, preserving covenant-based rights. The judges noted Malikhana as "distinct and separate," operating in "different spheres," unaffected by the Amendment, with post-1971 disbursements (over 50 years) affirming this.

On locus standi, the court found the petitioner's devotee/alumnus status insufficient for challenging royal privileges, absent personal stake or family rivalry. This aligns with principles requiring "sufficient interest" in writs.

Precedents bolstered the analysis. In Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu (2003), the Supreme Court limited writs of prohibition to "rarest of rare cases," such as jurisdictional excess or natural justice violations—none present here. The prior W.A. No. 83/2024 (Ext. R8(b)) was referenced, where the court quashed denials of enhancement and mandated Union review of Malikhana's nature (pension vs. property compensation), emphasizing historical inquiry without judicial overreach.

The analysis clarified no ultra vires action by the Collector, who merely notified disbursements as the Malikhana Disbursement Officer. Omitting the Union of India as a party further doomed the petition. This ruling delineates boundaries: while modern laws govern trusteeships, historical covenants shield specific entitlements from collateral attacks via unfitness claims.

Key Observations

The judgment featured several pivotal excerpts underscoring the court's stance:

• On the distinction between Malikhana and privy purse: "Therefore, we hold that the Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance are distinct and separate claims and operate in different spheres. We are of the considered opinion that the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971, would never affect a claim of a ruler of an Indian State based on a Covenant, agreement or a treaty."

• Regarding Article 363's bar: "In view of Article 363 of the Constitution of India, we have no hesitation in holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The non obstante clause in sub clause (1) of Article 363 of the Constitution specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Courts with respect to any disputes arising out of any provision of treaty, agreement, covenant..."

• On locus standi: "The petitioner has no locus standi to file a Writ Petition of this nature and to challenge an allowance liable to the senior members of the Royal Family, which was being paid by the Union of India on the basis of Covenant executed as early as in the year 1806."

• Addressing the Amendment's impact: "We find no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that by virtue of the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, the erstwhile rulers of Indian States have no legal right to claim the benefit of Malikhana."

• On writ of prohibition: "A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to be ordered sparingly in exceptional cases... the petitioner has not made out a case for the grant of the extraordinary relief of writ of prohibition."

These observations, drawn directly from the judgment by Justices Vijayaraghavan and Jayakumar, emphasize judicial restraint and historical fidelity.

Court's Decision

The Division Bench unequivocally dismissed the writ petition, declaring it barred under Article 363, the petitioner lacking locus standi, and reliefs ungranted. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed, payable to the High Court Mediation Centre within 30 days, signaling disapproval of perceived frivolous litigation.

Practically, this upholds the respondent's Malikhana claim (₹15,000 annually as 2nd Sthanee) and succession rights, allowing continued ceremonial oversight of temples and institutions without interruption. It quashes attempts to link financial issues to disqualification, as Section 45 applies to active misconduct, not historical covenants.

Implications extend beyond this case: it fortifies Article 363's role in shielding pre-1947 agreements, potentially shielding similar allowances in other former princely states (e.g., pensions or grants). For legal practitioners, it cautions against writs in historical entitlement disputes, prioritizing locus and jurisdictional bars. In Kerala's context, it preserves Zamorin traditions amid modernization, balancing cultural heritage with constitutional evolution. Future cases may test enhancement requests, as directed in the prior appeal, possibly escalating to the Supreme Court if denials occur. Overall, the ruling promotes stability in royal legacies while curbing misuse of public interest litigation, ensuring courts focus on contemporary injustices rather than revisiting colonial pacts.

This decision, integrated with historical context from the judgment and supplementary reports, reaffirms that while privy purses are extinct, covenant-derived rights like Malikhana endure, influencing how Indian courts navigate the intersection of tradition and law in a post-monarchical republic.