Bailabel Type : bailable

Description

Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) extends the provisions found in Section 85 (concerning suits against foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys) and Section 86 (which relates to suits against foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys, and the necessity of obtaining government consent before initiating such suits) to the rulers of former Indian states.

Key Provisions of Section 87B:

1. Application to Rulers of Former Indian States:

   • Section 87B applies the same principles and requirements outlined in Sections 85 and 86 to the rulers of former Indian states.
   • The term "former Indian states" refers to the princely states or territories that were under the British Raj and were later integrated into the Republic of India after independence in 1947.
   • This section ensures that the rulers of these former states, even though they no longer have sovereign authority, still enjoy some protections under Indian law similar to those enjoyed by foreign rulers. This was particularly relevant in the years immediately following India’s independence when many princely states were transitioning into the new Indian political framework.

2. Treating Former Rulers as Foreign Rulers:

   • The rulers of former Indian states are treated similarly to foreign rulers under the provisions of Sections 85 and 86. Specifically, they are immune from lawsuits (similar to foreign heads of state) and require the Indian Government’s consent before they can be sued in Indian courts.
   • This aligns with the principle of sovereign immunity, which shields individuals holding such high offices from legal actions unless there is express permission from the government.

3. Government Consent:

   • Just like in the case of foreign rulers, any legal action or suit against the rulers of former Indian states must first be approved by the Government of India.
   • The government’s role is crucial in ensuring that any legal action complies with India’s sovereign interests and respects the transitional status of these rulers.

4. Sovereign Immunity of Former Rulers:

   • The sovereign immunity principle continues to apply to the rulers of former states, meaning they cannot be sued directly in Indian courts without the approval of the Indian government, reflecting the delicate nature of their status even after the political integration of their states into the Republic of India.
   • For example, even if a ruler no longer has power, their title and the legal protections they previously enjoyed are maintained in certain respects, particularly when it comes to being named in lawsuits.

5. Historical Context:

   • This provision reflects the historical context of India’s transition from a colonial state to an independent republic. When India gained independence, it went through a process of unifying over 500 princely states into one nation. Many of the rulers of these states retained some formal privileges for a time, though their political power had been subsumed by the Indian Government.
   • The application of Sections 85 and 86 to these rulers allowed for a smooth legal transition and acknowledged their previous positions as sovereign heads.

Punishment

Section 87B primarily deals with the application of existing provisions to the rulers of former Indian states, and does not outline specific punitive measures or penalties for violations. However, there are certain legal implications and consequences:

1. Dismissal of Suit:

   • If a suit is filed against a ruler of a former Indian state without obtaining prior government consent, the case will likely be dismissed by the court, similar to how cases against foreign rulers or sovereign states are handled.

2. Legal Costs and Consequences of Misuse:

   • If an individual or entity files a lawsuit without obtaining the required consent, they could be ordered to pay the legal costs associated with the dismissal or delay of the case.

3. Diplomatic or Political Consequences:

   • As with foreign rulers, improperly suing a former ruler without permission could create political issues, especially if the ruler’s status or title is still officially recognized in some context.

4. Contempt of Court:

   • If a party knowingly violates the principles set out in Section 87B by filing a suit without consent, they could be held in contempt of court, leading to fines or other legal repercussions.