The Constitution of India
Article 363A
Recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States to cease and privy purses to be abolished
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force —
(a) the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;
(b) on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse.
Why this exists
When princely states joined the Indian Union after 1947, their Rulers signed 'Instruments of Accession' in exchange for guarantees, including recognition of their royal title and an annual privy purse payment (protected by Articles 291 and 362). By the late 1960s, the government of Indira Gandhi saw these royal privileges as incompatible with a democratic, egalitarian republic and moved to end them. An initial attempt to do this by a Presidential order was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1970 (Madhav Rao Scindia case) as beyond executive power. Parliament responded by passing the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, inserting Article 363A and repealing Articles 291 and 362, to abolish privy purses and royal recognition through a direct constitutional amendment.
How courts read it
In Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court held that the President could not simply 'de-recognise' Rulers by executive order, since that would destroy constitutionally guaranteed rights under Articles 291 and 362. This ruling forced Parliament to use a formal constitutional amendment instead. Later, in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 26th Amendment and Article 363A, rejecting arguments that abolishing privy purses violated basic constitutional guarantees, holding that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution this way.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The government just quietly stopped paying privy purses without any legal process.
Fact: It took a Supreme Court case (1970) striking down an executive order, followed by a formal constitutional amendment in 1971 that added Article 363A, to legally abolish privy purses. - Myth: Former royal families could still sue to get their privy purse or title back.
Fact: Article 363A explicitly overrides any other constitutional provision or law, and the Supreme Court in 1993 upheld its validity, so no such claim can succeed.