In a significant ruling that delves into India's colonial history and constitutional framework, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the continued payment of a centuries-old hereditary allowance to the erstwhile royal family of Calicut. The bench firmly cited a specific constitutional provision that bars judicial intervention in such historical agreements.
Court's Verdict: A Distinction Between Allowance and Privy Purse
A division bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K V Jayakumar delivered the judgment on January 12, 2026. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Sanoop V V, a resident of Kozhikode, who sought to stop the payment of 'Malikhana' to the Zamorin family. The petitioner argued that this allowance, a political pension established in 1806, was effectively abolished by the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, which did away with privy purses and royal privileges.
However, the High Court drew a clear legal distinction. The bench held, "On a scrutiny of the provisions... it is crystal clear that only the Privy Purse payable to the erstwhile ruler is abolished." The court emphasized that Article 363 of the Constitution remains intact. This article excludes the jurisdiction of courts in disputes arising from treaties, covenants, or agreements entered into by erstwhile rulers before the Constitution's commencement.
The court concluded that Malikhana and Privy Purse are separate claims operating in different spheres. The 1971 amendment did not affect a ruler's claim based on a pre-Constitution covenant, and thus, the payment could continue.
Petition Dismissed on Grounds of Maintainability and Locus Standi
The court dismissed the petition on multiple substantive grounds. Primarily, it held the writ petition was barred by Article 363, which creates an absolute judicial bar concerning historical covenants.
Secondly, the bench was categorical that the petitioner, who claimed to be a devotee of the Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and an alumnus of Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College, failed to establish locus standi (sufficient legal interest). The court ruled that being a devotee or an alumnus does not grant one the standing to challenge a hereditary allowance paid based on an 1806 agreement.
The petitioner had also made allegations about the financial conduct of the claimant, P K Kerala Varma Raja, and sought to restrain him from exercising authority over certain temples and institutions. The court rejected this plea for a writ of prohibition, stating such an extraordinary remedy requires rare circumstances absent in this case.
Historical Context and Legal Arguments
The Malikhana allowance originates from a covenant executed in 1806 between the Zamorin Raja and the British East India Company. The respondents, including the Zamorin family, argued this was a distinct historical agreement, not a privy purse. They highlighted that the allowance has been disbursed for over five decades post the 26th Amendment, with the Union of India as the disbursing authority.
The petitioner's counsel contended that Malikhana was indistinguishable from a abolished political pension. They urged the court to hold that no individual could claim such benefits in post-Constitution India and called for an independent enquiry into the claimant's antecedents.
The High Court found the petition not only legally untenable but also lacking in bona fides. Consequently, it dismissed the plea with costs of Rs 10,000, directing the amount to be paid to the court's mediation centre within 30 days. This ruling underscores the continued legal sanctity of certain pre-Constitution agreements, insulating them from contemporary judicial challenge on specific grounds.
