Under part XIX, Article 363 of Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that restricts court interference in specific treaty-related disputes . When India gained independence and formed the Constitution it had to integrate over 500 princely states . Many of these states joined the Union under covenants and agreements, often involving assurances regarding rights, titles or privileges.

To safeguard the legal integrity of these accessions and maintain the trust of princely rulers Article 363 of the Indian Constitution was added . This provision prevents courts—whether the Supreme Court or any High Court—from adjudicating disputes that arise out of such treaties, covenants, engagements or agreements.

Essentially Article 363 of Constitution of India serves as a bar to judicial intervention in these sensitive matters . It was designed to preserve the sanctity of India's integration process and prevent future legal challenges that could destabilize the post-independence political landscape . Explore in-depth analysis of other Constitutional Articles.

Article 363 of Indian Constitution

Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.

(1)Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument.

(2)In this article--

(a)"Indian State" means any territory recognised before the commencement of this Constitution by his Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as being such a State; and

(b)"Ruler" includes the Prince, Chief or other person recognised before such commencement by his Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as the Ruler of any Indian State.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download PDF on Article 363 of Indian Constitution

Article 363 of Indian Constitution was enacted to restrict judicial interference in disputes stemming from historical treaties and instruments. In other words, it acts as a bar on courts—including the Supreme Court and High Courts—from hearing cases about pre-Constitution agreements, such as accession treaties signed by princely states with the Indian government.

The purpose of Article 363 of the Indian Constitution was to protect the political and legal framework under which these states joined the Indian Union. Since these treaties were not meant to be scrutinized through conventional litigation, the article ensures the sanctity of those agreements is preserved.

Its scope includes disputes that arise from any right or liability under these constitutional provisions. Importantly, "Ruler" under article 363 includes princes or chiefs who were officially recognized before 1950.

While the article restricts court intervention, it does permit the President of India to seek advisory opinion from the Supreme Court under Article 143. Thus, while courts cannot entertain suits directly under such disputes, the 363 article allows limited constitutional oversight through presidential reference.

Ultimately, Article 363 of Constitution maintains the stability of the Indian Union by ensuring that old treaties are not turned into sources of prolonged legal conflict.

Article 363 of Indian Constitution Landmark Judgments

Even though Article 363 limits court jurisdiction, the judiciary has occasionally addressed its scope in various cases:

• Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) – This case directly challenged the abolition of privy purses and derecognition of former rulers. The Government invoked Article 363 to argue that courts could not intervene in disputes arising from accession agreements. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of this claim, making Article 363 a central issue in the judgment.
• H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India – This follow-up case reinforced the arguments made in the Madhav Rao case. It again examined whether the withdrawal of privileges granted under pre-Constitution agreements could bypass judicial scrutiny. The scope and limits of Article 363 of Constitution of India were thoroughly discussed.

The inclusion of Article 363 of Constitution of India was politically strategic. It provided assurance to princely states that their agreements with the Union government would be honored without being subjected to constant judicial examination. This helped the Indian government build confidence and consensus during the nation's fragile early years.

The significance of Article 363 of Indian Constitution lies in its ability to shield sensitive historical agreements from being contested in court . It was crucial in the immediate post independence era when the country needed legal stability and national unity over adversarial litigation.

Moreover, the article also reflects a unique balance between honoring the past and building a modern legal framework. While the judiciary is an essential guardian of constitutional values, Article 363 shows that in some situations, especially those involving nation-building and sensitive treaties, limited court jurisdiction might actually serve a greater democratic purpose.

Today, though largely symbolic due to the 26th Amendment, article 363 1 continues to stand as a historical reminder of how law and diplomacy worked hand-in-hand in integrating princely states.

Article 363 of Indian Constitution Developments and Amendments 

One of the most impactful developments related to Article 363 of Constitution came with the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971. This amendment:

• Abolished privy purses (Article 291),
• Derecognized the titles and privileges of former rulers (Article 362),
• Introduced Article 363A, which explicitly stated that rulers would no longer be recognized and would not receive any privileges.

With the removal of Article 362 of Indian Constitution and the introduction of Article 363A, the scope of Article 363 was practically diminished. The treaties and agreements it aimed to protect lost their constitutional backing.

However, Article 363 of Constitution of India was not repealed and continues to exist in the Constitution. Its legal utility may be dormant, but its historical and interpretive relevance persists.

In modern India, 363 article stands more as a constitutional relic than an active tool. Yet, it remains critical to understanding how India legally managed the integration of princely states. Its continued presence is a testament to the cautious and inclusive strategy adopted during one of the most complex political transitions in world history.

Conclusion

Article 363 of Indian Constitution was never meant to be a frequently used provision but was always a necessary one. It served as a constitutional lock that barred judicial forums from revisiting the sensitive political commitments made during the integration of princely states.

The goal of article 363 was clear—to preserve the Union, not to silence justice. It ensured that agreements signed before 1950 remained respected without turning them into continuous sources of constitutional litigation. This approach helped India transition from a fragmented colonial entity into a unified democratic nation.

Though Article 363 of the Indian Constitution has lost much of its operative power due to subsequent amendments, it has left behind a significant legal legacy. It highlights the importance of honoring transitional agreements, especially in post-colonial states facing complex state-building challenges.

In essence, art 363 is a product of its time—a shield for political promises, a guardian of unity, and a unique legal boundary in an otherwise judicially active democracy.

Even today, scholars and constitutional historians look to Article 363 of Constitution of India to understand how law can adapt to political necessity while upholding national integrity and trust in governance.