1964 (3) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Alleged contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Historical and legislative background of Section 87B.
4. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by Section 87B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 87B of the CPC, claiming it was ultra vires. Section 87B(1) applies provisions of Sections 85 and 86 of the CPC to Rulers of former Indian States, requiring the Central Government's sanction before any suit can be filed against them. The Court noted that the legislative background of Section 87B is rooted in historical agreements and covenants between the Central Government and Indian Princes, which aimed to ensure the privileges and dignities of the Rulers were respected post-independence.

2. Alleged contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that Section 87B contravenes Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 19(1)(f) protects the right to property. The Court dismissed the challenge under Article 14, referencing its decision in Mohan Lal Jain v. His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Man Singhji, where it was held that ex-Rulers form a distinct class, and the special treatment given to them is not unconstitutional discrimination. The Court also found that the restriction imposed by Section 87B on the petitioners' right under Article 19(1)(f) was reasonable, given the historical context and the need to honor the assurances given to the Rulers during the merger of Indian States with India.

3. Historical and legislative background of Section 87B:
The Court emphasized the importance of the historical and legislative background of Section 87B. The protection afforded to former Rulers under Section 87B is linked to the covenants and agreements made during the political integration of Indian States. Article 362 of the Constitution underscores the need to respect these agreements, which include privileges such as extra-territoriality and exemption from civil jurisdiction without Central Government sanction.

4. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by Section 87B:
The Court found the restrictions imposed by Section 87B to be reasonable and in the public interest. It acknowledged that while these restrictions might cause hardship to individuals like the petitioners, they were necessary to maintain the assurances given to the Rulers during the integration of Indian States. The Court suggested that the Central Government should consider whether the operation of Section 87B should continue indefinitely, especially for transactions post-1950. It also advised that the Central Government should generally grant sanction for suits against former Rulers unless the claims are frivolous, to prevent discontent among litigants.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Section 87B of the CPC. It emphasized the need to balance historical assurances with the principle of equality before the law and suggested that the Central Government should review the necessity of Section 87B's continued operation. There was no order as to costs.