Malikhana Allowance Distinct From Privy Purse: Kerala High Court Upholds Zamorin Raja’s Entitlement Under Article 363

Introduction

In a significant constitutional ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified the legal distinction between Malikhana allowance and Privy Purse, holding that the former continues to survive constitutional scrutiny despite the abolition of privy purses by the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the historic Zamorin royal family of Kozhikode, citing the constitutional bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India.

Contents

Introduction Background Of The Case Issues Before The Court Article 363 And Constitutional Bar On Judicial Review Malikhana Allowance Vs Privy Purse Locus Standi Of The Petitioner Refusal To Grant Writ Of Prohibition Non-Joinder Of Necessary Parties Final Decision Conclusion

The judgment is important not only for its interpretation of Article 363 but also for reaffirming judicial restraint in matters arising out of pre-Constitution covenants and treaties. The decision reiterates that courts cannot adjudicate disputes rooted in historical agreements entered into by rulers of Indian States prior to the commencement of the Constitution.

Background Of The Case

The writ petition was filed by an individual claiming to be a devotee of Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and an alumnus of Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College. The petitioner challenged an order issued by the District Collector, Kozhikode, granting Malikhana allowance to the former Zamorin, late KC Ramachandran Raja, and by extension to the present Zamorin Raja, PK Kerala Varma.

According to the petitioner, the Malikhana allowance was in the nature of a hereditary political pension originating during the British era. He argued that such allowance stood abolished following the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, which abolished privy purses and derecognised former rulers of Indian States.

The petitioner further alleged that the present Zamorin Raja was financially and legally unfit to hold hereditary or fiduciary positions due to pending liabilities amounting to ₹82.95 crores owed to the State Bank of India and proceedings initiated by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).

On these grounds, the petitioner sought multiple reliefs including:

Quashing of the District Collector’s order granting Malikhana allowance
A declaration that Malikhana allowance stood abolished after the 26th Constitutional Amendment
An enquiry into the antecedents of the present Zamorin Raja
Restraint on the exercise of authority over temples and educational institutions associated with the Zamorin Kovilakam

Issues Before The Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar primarily examined the following issues:

Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India
Whether Malikhana allowance is equivalent to or forms part of Privy Purse abolished by the 26th Constitutional Amendment
Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the grant of Malikhana allowance
Whether any relief could be granted under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction

Article 363 And Constitutional Bar On Judicial Review

Article 363 of the Constitution of India expressly bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising out of treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements or sanads entered into by rulers of Indian States with the Government of India or its predecessors before the commencement of the Constitution.

The Court emphasised that Article 363(1) contains a non obstante clause, giving it overriding effect over all other provisions of the Constitution. As a result, any dispute that traces its origin to a pre-Constitution covenant is constitutionally immune from judicial scrutiny.

In the present case, the Court noted that the entitlement to Malikhana allowance arose from a Covenant executed with the East India Company on November 15, 1806. Since the allowance continued to be paid through the Union of India based on this historical covenant, any dispute regarding its validity or continuation squarely fell within the ambit of Article 363.

Accordingly, the Court held that the writ petition itself was barred and not maintainable.

Malikhana Allowance Vs Privy Purse

A key contention raised by the petitioner was that Malikhana allowance stood abolished along with Privy Purses following the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. The Court categorically rejected this argument.

Drawing a clear distinction between the two, the Bench held that Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance operate in different legal and constitutional spheres. While Privy Purses were constitutional recognitions granted to former rulers and were expressly abolished by the 26th Amendment, Malikhana allowance flows from independent covenants or treaties entered into prior to the Constitution.

The Court observed:

“The Privy Purse and Malikhana allowance are distinct and separate claims and operate in different spheres. The Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971 would never affect a claim of a ruler of an Indian State based on a Covenant, agreement or a treaty.”

The Bench further clarified that Article 363 continues to operate even after the 26th Amendment, thereby preserving the constitutional bar against adjudication of treaty-based claims.

Locus Standi Of The Petitioner

The High Court also examined whether the petitioner had the requisite locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It held that merely being a devotee of a temple or an alumnus of an institution historically associated with the Zamorin family does not confer any personal or legal interest in the Malikhana allowance.

The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any direct injury, legal right, or enforceable interest affected by the grant of allowance. As such, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi as well.

Refusal To Grant Writ Of Prohibition

The petitioner had also sought a writ of prohibition restraining the present Zamorin Raja from exercising authority over temples and educational institutions. The Court declined to grant such relief, noting that writs of prohibition are issued only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

In the absence of any jurisdictional error or compelling legal infirmity, the Court held that no such extraordinary relief could be granted.

Non-Joinder Of Necessary Parties

An additional factor undermining the maintainability of the petition was the failure to implead the Union of India, which was responsible for disbursing the Malikhana allowance. The Court noted that any adjudication in the absence of a necessary party would be legally unsustainable.

Final Decision

In view of the constitutional bar under Article 363, lack of locus standi, and absence of grounds for invoking writ jurisdiction, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety. The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, directing the amount to be paid to the High Court Mediation Centre.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the constitutional sanctity of Article 363 and underscores the limited role of courts in adjudicating disputes rooted in pre-Constitution covenants. By clearly distinguishing Malikhana allowance from Privy Purse, the Kerala High Court has provided much-needed clarity on the survival of treaty-based rights even after the abolition of princely privileges.

The ruling serves as an important precedent on judicial restraint, locus standi in public law litigation, and the continued relevance of historical covenants in India’s constitutional framework.