NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether a pre-Constitution covenant facilitating merger of Jaipur princely state with the Dominion of India could decide the ownership claim of the erstwhile royal family over the 145-year-old Sawai Man Singh Town Hall, or Old Vidhan Sabha, now proposed to be converted into a heritage museum.It will also examine whether courts, including the SC, was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution from entertaining any dispute arising from treaties and covenants entered between an erstwhile ruler of an Indian state and to which the govt of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor govts was a party.Rajasthan govt’s Oct 2022 decision to convert the building, used as state assembly from 1952 till the 1990s, into a heritage museum alarmed erstwhile royal family members who believe it is an attempt to erase their ownership over the property, which according to them was acknowledged in the March 1949 covenant signed between the govt of India and the United States of Rajasthan.Under the terms of the covenant, the princely states of Banswara, Bikaner, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, Jodhpur, Kishangarh, Kota, Mewar, Pratapgarh, Shahpur and Tonk merged with the Dominion of India. Under the covenant, the title of private properties of the princely state rulers would continue to vest in them.Appearing for Jaipur’s erstwhile royal family, senior advocates Harish Salve and Vibha D Makhija said because of Article 363 — which bars courts, including the SC, from entertaining disputes arising from treaties or covenants — titles of erstwhile royal family members over private properties acknowledged by the covenant could not be completely extinguished. This constitutional provision could be given a restricted meaning to allow filing of civil suits to get back possession of properties admittedly belonging to royal families under the covenant, Salve said.A partial working day bench comprising Justices Prashant K Mishra and A G Masih was initially reluctant to entertain the petition as it apprehended that this would lead to heirs of erstwhile princely states to lay claim over huge tracts of land and villages owned by them earlier. But Salve said it pertained to only a few properties mentioned in the covenant and was not intended for widening title rights over villages.When the bench issued notice to the Rajasthan govt, its additional advocate general Shiv M Sharma and advocate Kartikeya informed the court that it would honour the pendency of the case before the high court and not precipitate the issue.
