New Delhi, June 3 (Reporter) The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Rajmata Padmini Devi, Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister Diya Kumari, and Maharaja Sawai Padmanabh Singh of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family, challenging the constitutional bar under Article 363 over adjudication of disputes stemming from pre-Independence covenants between princely states and the Government of India. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih on Monday signaled readiness to delve into the nuanced constitutional debate surrounding the continuing applicability of Article 363 especially after the repeal of its companion provision, Article 362, in 1972. Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, assisted by Senior Counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, contended that the 1949 covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India (GoI), but among five Rajasthan rulers, with the Centre acting merely as a guarantor. Hence, Article 363, which bars courts from entertaining disputes arising from covenants, should not apply. Salve invoked Articles 363 and 366, arguing that the ownership of the disputed properties existed prior to the covenant, and that the Constitution must now permit courts to re-examine the legal rights surrounding such properties. Justice Mishra, however, asked pointedly, “Without the Government of India being a party, how did you merge with the Union of India?” He further questioned the broader implications: “If your argument is accepted, then the entire state of Rajasthan would be governed by the King. "Will all princely states be free to claim their properties?” the Court asked. Salve responded that allowing adjudication was not tantamount to conceding ownership: “Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I’m only arguing on the right to be heard in court.” The petition challenges the April 17 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed four civil suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic Jaipur properties including Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace. The High Court had ruled that these suits were barred by Article 363, which prohibits court jurisdiction over disputes related to pre-Constitution covenants. The court accepted the State’s revision pleas and rejected the royals’ claims under the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court bench observed that the matter raises complex constitutional questions: “You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur could be yours.” The bench issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after eight weeks. Salve requested interim relief, seeking to preserve the status quo. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shiv Mangal Sharma, appearing for the Rajasthan government, accepted the notice and assured the court that no precipitative steps would be taken regarding the disputed properties. This case may become a watershed moment in determining whether India’s constitutional bar on royal covenants still holds, or whether legal avenues can reopen for former rulers seeking possession or compensation over their ancestral properties. The bench noted, this legal challenge could either reaffirm the constitutional closure of the princely era, or rekindle claims from royal families across the country, testing the delicate balance between historical integration and legal continuity in the Republic of India...////...