The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin royal family, holding that disputes relating to entitlements arising from pre-Constitution covenants are barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 363 of the Constitution. The petition was filed by an individual who identified himself as a devotee of the Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and an alumnus of Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College, questioning an order by the Kozhikode District Collector that had sanctioned a Malikhana allowance to the former Zamorin, the late KC Ramachandran Raja. The petitioner asserted that the allowance was a form of hereditary political pension granted during the British period and contended that such allowances stood abolished following the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished privy purses. He also alleged that the current Zamorin Raja, PK Kerala Varma, was unfit to hold hereditary or fiduciary positions due to substantial liabilities to a bank and ongoing proceedings by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, and on this basis sought to quash the collector’s order, initiate an inquiry into the respondent’s antecedents, restrain exercise of authority over associated temples and institutions, and declare the Malikhana allowance itself abolished.
In its examination of the challenge, the High Court first addressed whether the petition was maintainable in light of Article 363 of the Constitution, which prohibits courts from adjudicating disputes arising from covenants, treaties, agreements, engagements, or sanads entered into by rulers of Indian States with the Dominion of India or its predecessors before the commencement of the Constitution. The Constitution’s non obstante clause under Article 363(1) was interpreted to bar judicial review of such disputes, and the bench noted that the entitlement claimed by the Zamorin family was rooted in a covenant executed with the East India Company on November 15, 1806, with payments continuing through the Union of India. As this entitlement emanated from a pre-Constitution covenant, the court held that any dispute concerning it fell squarely within the constitutional bar and was not justiciable.
The High Court then considered the petitioner’s argument that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which abolished privy purses, by necessary implication also extinguished the Malikhana allowance. The bench rejected this argument, explaining that the amendment abolished privy purses but did not affect rights based on pre-Constitution covenants or treaties, noting that the constitutional bar under Article 363 continued to operate. The court distinguished between the privy purse and the Malikhana allowance, observing that they are distinct and separate claims operating in different legal spheres. It held that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment did not extinguish claims of rulers of Indian States arising from covenants or treaties, and thus the petitioner’s contention that the amendment nullified the Zamorin family’s claim to Malikhana lacked merit.
The High Court also examined the petitioner’s locus standi to bring the challenge. It found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any personal, legal, or proprietary interest in the allowance or in the hereditary rights of the Zamorin family. The court observed that merely being a devotee of a temple associated with the Zamorin family or having attended an educational institution historically linked to the family did not confer the necessary locus to challenge payments arising from historical covenants or allowances payable to senior members of the royal family. The bench emphasized that writ jurisdiction could not be exercised by a party lacking a direct interest in the subject matter of the petition.
In addressing the relief sought by the petitioner, including a writ of prohibition against the current Zamorin Raja, the High Court noted that such extraordinary relief is available only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and found no cogent basis to justify such intervention in this case. The bench also noted procedural shortcomings in the petition, including the absence of the Union of India, which was responsible for paying the allowance, as a party to the proceedings. This further undermined the maintainability of the challenge, as it would have been necessary to include all interested and affected parties in a dispute concerning a historical covenant and ongoing payments.
Considering all these factors, the High Court concluded that the writ petition was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution, that the petitioner lacked locus standi, and that none of the reliefs sought could be granted in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs to the High Court’s Mediation Centre. This decision reaffirms that entitlements grounded in pre-Constitution covenants, such as Malikhana allowances, fall outside the scope of judicial review under the constitutional framework and cannot be challenged by unrelated parties in writ proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.