Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.12 seconds)Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997
17. Thereafter, the Court took note of the previous rulings in Shiv
Sagar Tiwari (supra); the preamble of the Constitution of India; the
judgment in Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and
Another, (1998) 1 SCC 226.
Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Etc. Etc vs Union Of India on 4 February, 1993
19. The Supreme Court had cited Raghunathrao Ganpatrao
(supra) and the abolition of privy purses. At the time of the nation's
independence, most princely states acceded to the Indian Union
through compacts and other instruments. A few states (notably Hy-
derabad, Travancore, Bhopal, Jodhpur, Junagarh and Kashmir), re-
sisted. Sardar Patel's skills and the untiring efforts of late V.P.
Menon led to the complete integration of most of these states, be-
fore 1947, and the remaining, after 1947. As part of the bargain (of
acceding to the Union), the Central Government granted to the
rulers 'privy purses', i.e. specified sums of money payable annually
to the (erstwhile) rulers of such States. The quantum of the 'privy
purse' payment was determined by the erstwhile states' revenue,
the gun salutes it was entitled to, etc. These payments were free
from tax and were guaranteed by a provision in the Constitution of
India - Article 29. The amounts could be anything between Rs.
5,000 per annum and Rs. 26 lakhs per annum. Privy purse pay-
ments to the former rulers were questioned as anachronistic and
the first attempt to abolish the system, which also included the at-
tempt to abolish titles was not a success; a Constitutional amend-
ment did not pass muster in 1969. Ultimately, by the 26th Amend-
ment to the Constitution of India in 1971, the then Prime Minister,
Indira Gandhi, argued the case for abolition based on equal rights
for all citizens and the need to reduce the Government's revenue
deficit. The Constitutional Amendment recorded the following as its
objectives and reasons:
Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987
Furthermore, the Court took note of Akhil Bhartiya
Upbhokta Congress (supra), Sachidanand Pandey and Another v.
State of West Bengal and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 295, as well as
E.P.Royappa (supra) and held as follows:-
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975
In the seminal judgment of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
and Another, AIR 1975 SC 2299, the Supreme Court held as fol-
lows:
The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952
21. Much earlier, in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR
1952 SC 75, expressing reservations about the efficacy of the the-
ory of classification, Vivian Bose, J., poignantly stated as follows: