Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v.

Union of India, (1969) 3 SCC 150

By – KHUSHI SONI
AGENDA

▪ FACTS
▪ PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
▪ ISSUES
▪ RELATED PROVISIONS
▪ ANALYSIS
▪ CONCLUSION
▪ IMPACT ON LAW
▪ OWN OPINION
 FACTS

Dholpur was formed in 1806 and later merged with the Matsya Union and formed the United

state of Rajasthan in 1949. They made a covenant, under Article 12 gave full ownership use of

all property to the ruler of each conventing state. However, dholpur was left with no legal heir.

So the widow of the last ruler adopted her grandson (daughter’s son) and the president in 1956

recognized the adopted son as the ruler of Dholpur.

 PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

According to the petitioner, when the government by official notification

recognized Rana Shri Hemant Singh as the ruler of Dholpur all the private
property of over 3 crore was handed over to him and it is ex facie bad and
infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under article 19(1)(f) and article 31
of the constitution.
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Article 366 clause(22), Article 363, Article 291, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of
the Indian constitution.
MAIN ISSUE

Whether there is any infringement of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Indian constitution by
the government order?
 ANALYSIS

▪ Clause 22 of Article 366 defines “ruler”. That defines a ruler as any chief,
prince, or other person recognized by the president before the constitution.

▪ Article 14 of their covenant states that succession is based on each state's

laws and customs to determine gaddi. Under clause (22) of article 366, the
president acknowledged the adopted son as Dholpur's king. Recognition of
the ruler grants the right to succeed to the gaddi. Presidents have executive
power to acknowledge the ruler, not private property rights.
▪ The petitioner must prove basic rights violations under Article 19(1)(f) or Article 31.
Under Article 14 of the covenant, the states ceased to exist as independent entities
as long as they violated the constitution.

▪ According to the petitioner's counsel, acknowledgment of the ruler automatically

grants the ruler property under the covenant since rulership and property are
intertwined. However, the court noted that recognition by the president is political
authority and that clause (22) of Article 366 does not grant the ruler the right to
private property, which is controlled by personal succession rules.
 CONCLUSION

The petitioner's claim fails on two counts.

▪ Private property claims are not considered by the President under 366.
▪ The petitioner does not own any private property impacted by the
ruler's recognition.
 IMPACT ON LAW

The judgment has provided clarity on the president’s authority over the recognition of
the ruler as the court mentions that recognition does not mean the entitlement of any
other right over private property. Also, there is the limitation to the political recognition
and matters of inheritance of succession which falls under personal laws. This judgment
separated the political and legal aspects of property rights..

▪
 OWN OPINION

This judgment is one of the examples which has broadened the scope of judicial
interpretation. Article 366 clause (22) gives the political power to the president to recognize
the ruler but it only deals with the recognition of the title of a ruler and nowhere does it
mention other powers attached to the title and leaves it only to the interpretation of the
judiciary. However, the judgment is my understanding of the judgment serves as valuable
learning as the interpretation of the constitutional provision as it provides a clear
understanding of executive authority in matters of recognition and sets a fair precedent.

▪
THANK YOU