The Supreme Court of India is currently debating whether to constitute a full court to hear the series of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the privileges and privy purses of India’s erstwhile rulers. The discussions come as the petitions have raised complex constitutional and historical questions, prompting calls for a broader judicial bench to examine the matter.
Background: The 26th Constitutional Amendment
Passed in 1971, the 26th Amendment of the Indian Constitution ended the recognition of former princely rulers and abolished their privy purses—annual payments guaranteed to them by the Indian government after independence as part of their accession agreements.
The move was a significant step by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government to reinforce the principle of equality under the Constitution and eliminate hereditary privileges.
However, in recent years, a series of petitions have emerged, arguing that the abolition was unconstitutional and violated the original terms of accession signed between the princely states and the Indian government. These petitions have reopened historical and legal debates that date back more than five decades.
Supreme Court’s Consideration of a Full Bench
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, is now deliberating whether the matter warrants hearing by a full court—which would include all judges of the apex court.
Sources indicate that the Chief Justice has sought opinions from senior judges regarding the scale and constitutional depth of the issue. A decision is expected soon on whether a larger constitutional bench, possibly comprising nine or more judges, will be constituted.
Legal experts say that forming a full court is rare and typically reserved for issues that carry profound implications for India’s constitutional framework—such as those involving fundamental rights, separation of powers, or federal relations.
Key Legal Questions Before the Court
The petitions challenging the 26th Amendment have brought forth several crucial constitutional questions, including:
-
Whether the right to privy purses was a contractual or constitutional guarantee.
-
If the terms of accession between the Indian Union and the princely states can be legally revisited.
-
Whether the Parliament exceeded its amending power under Article 368 by abrogating these privileges.
Senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that the amendment “struck at the heart of India’s federal compromise” and altered the constitutional balance promised during the country’s integration.
The Union government, on the other hand, maintains that the 26th Amendment was a valid exercise of Parliament’s power, in line with the egalitarian vision of the Constitution.
Historical Context and Political Significance
The abolition of privy purses in 1971 marked a decisive shift in India’s socio-political landscape. It ended centuries-old royal entitlements and reinforced the idea that all citizens were equal before the law.
The move, however, had faced strong opposition at the time. The Privy Purse Case (Madhav Rao Scindia vs Union of India, 1971) had briefly overturned the government’s attempt to withdraw recognition of former rulers. Soon after, the 26th Amendment was passed by Parliament, effectively nullifying that judgment.
Today, as the Supreme Court revisits the issue, historians and constitutional scholars are closely watching to see whether the bench will uphold the amendment’s legacy or reinterpret it through a modern legal lens.
Expert Opinions
Constitutional expert Dr. Faizan Mustafa noted that the debate is not merely historical but “touches upon the nature of the Indian federation and the sanctity of constitutional amendments.”
Legal analyst Indira Jaising said that the petitions provide an opportunity for the Court to reaffirm “the limits and legitimacy of Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368.”
Next Steps in the Case
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a procedural order in the coming weeks, clarifying the composition of the bench and the schedule of hearings. If a full court is constituted, it would mark one of the rarest judicial events in recent Indian history—underscoring the enduring complexity of the 26th Amendment debate.
FAQs
1. What is the 26th Amendment of the Indian Constitution?
The 26th Amendment, passed in 1971, abolished the privy purses and official recognition of India’s former princely rulers.
2. Why are petitions challenging the amendment now?
Petitioners claim that abolishing the privy purses violated the original terms of accession and constitutional guarantees made to princely states.
3. What does “full court” mean in the Supreme Court context?
A full court refers to a sitting of all judges of the Supreme Court, usually convened for matters of exceptional constitutional importance.
4. Who is leading the current deliberation?
The deliberation is being led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who is consulting senior judges on forming an expanded bench.
5. What are the next steps in the case?
The Court will decide soon whether to constitute a full or larger constitutional bench to hear the 26th Amendment petitions in detail.
