Professional Documents
Culture Documents
▪ 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
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.
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