Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bearing in mind these considerations, we are of the view that the Madras Act of 1951, in its application to the South Kanara District of Mysore, now Karnataka, does not infringe article 14 of the Constitution.

But then, learned counsel for the appellants argues that while following the judgments above referred to, we must not overlook the caveat contained in those judgments and the description therein of section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act as a 'temporary measure'. In this behalf, reliance is also placed by counsel on the decision in Narottam Kishore Dev Varma and ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. The petitioners therein applied for the consent of the Central Government under section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue the Maharaja of Tripura, Ruler of a former Indian State which had merged with India. Consent having been refused, they filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging the validity of section 87B on the ground that in granting exemption to Rulers of former Indian States from being sued except with the consent of the Central Government, the section contravened article 14 of the Constitution. The Court followed an earlier judgment and repelled the challenge but while doing so, Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for the Court, made an important observation inviting the Central Government to consider seriously whether it was necessary to allow section 87B to operate prospectively for all time and whether transactions subsequent to January 26, 1950 should also receive the protection of the section. The Court felt that, considered broadly in the light of the basic principle of equality before law, it was somewhat odd that section 87B should continue to operate for all time. "With the passage of time"