New Delhi, Jan 5 (Reporter) The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Central government on a plea challenging the continuation of the hereditary office of the Prince of Arcot despite the abolition of titles and privy purses by the Constitution of India. A public interest litigation petition was filed by one S Kumarvelu in the Supreme Court today through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who argued that the British, in a bid to gain support, bestowed special status, grants, and titles upon certain individuals or families, leading to the creation of the hereditary office of the Prince of Arcot. The petitioner contended that such special status cannot continue after the enforcement of the Constitution of India. The hereditary office of Prince of Arcot was established by a Letters Patent dated August 2, 1870. As per the petition, the Government of India misinterpreted the terms of the Letter Patent and continued to confer the title of Prince of Arcot and financial grants in violation of the terms stipulated in it. Whereas the hereditary title became unenforceable and void with the enforcement of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950. A bench comprising Justice P S Narsimha and Justice Aravind Kumar issued notice to the Central Government on a petition by S. Kumarvelu, challenging the Madras High Court order that had dismissed the petition earlier. The petitioner said there was no rationale behind extending privileges, honors, and financial support to just the Prince of Arcot considering that other rulers had relinquished their kingdoms and privileges. Citing the historical context and the suppression of the 1800 Vellore Revolt and the alliance between the British and the Prince of Arcot, the petitioner cited Article 18(1), which expressly prohibits the conferment of titles by the state. The petitioner said that it is unfortunate that the interpretation of the Constitution after the abolition of privy purses in 1969 was to provide public resources, including a palatial building, to the current holder of the title in a legitimate way. Such titles are also in direct contradiction to the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioner said...////...