Author: Avinash Pandey, IILM University
TO THE POINT
This legal article investigates the transformation of princely traditions in Rajasthan, as immortalized in Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, and their legal evolution in independent India. Using the landmark case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857), it explores how state instrumentalities inherited from princely administrations came under the ambit of constitutional law, especially Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The article also provides a broader context of how colonial documentation shaped legal interpretation post-independence.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Article 12 of the Constitution
Sovereign Function
Instrumentality of the State
Feudal Tenure
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
Rajputana Agency
Judicial Review
Public Law Remedy
Quasi-Judicial Authority
Customary Law
Legal Fiction
Rule of Law
Legal Pluralism
Locus Standi
Writ Jurisdiction
Administrative Discretion
Substantive Due Process
Statutory Mandate
Constitutional Morality
THE PROOF
The legal transition of princely Rajasthan into a democratic structure highlights the power of constitutional jurisprudence over customary, royal, or feudal authority. James Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan established the cultural and political foundation of princely India. However, once the Indian Constitution was enacted, institutions and administrative structures that evolved from those feudal systems were subjected to judicial interpretation under modern law. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 12 in Mohan Lal underscored that legacy or form of origin is no bar to accountability if a body discharges public functions.
Tod’s chronicles gave a historical face to entities that would eventually be reclassified under Indian public law. The governance system based on valor, loyalty, and tradition was absorbed and reshaped through constitutional parameters emphasizing transparency, accountability, and equality.
The jurisprudence on Article 12 reveals a conscious departure from colonial endorsement of status quo power structures. Courts have imposed legal obligations even on those institutions with historic exemptions, thereby establishing that legal evolution is not just codified progression but also normative realignment. The judiciary has been instrumental in applying the public function test to bodies that derive legitimacy from historical continuity but must now conform to democratic norms.
ABSTRACT
This article explores how the historical narratives of Rajput governance documented in Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan influenced legal developments in post-colonial India. This analysis thoroughly examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, which acknowledged that even institutions established after the princely era qualify as ‘State’ under Article 12. By juxtaposing colonial ethnography with modern constitutional law, the article argues for a better understanding of how history influences public law.
The analysis extends beyond historical curiosity to underscore practical implications—such as the enforceability of fundamental rights against statutory bodies and the challenges in reinterpreting legacy institutions. The article also considers how Tod’s depiction of feudal customs reflects legal pluralism that Indian courts have had to reconcile with constitutional supremacy.
CASE LAWS
1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
Facts: Mohan Lal, a temporary lineman employed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, was dismissed without being given a fair chance to present his case. He approached the High Court under Article 226, which was challenged by the Board on the ground that it was not a “State” under Article 12.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the Board, though not a government department, was a statutory authority created under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and hence an instrumentality of the State. It was therefore subject to Part III of the Constitution.
Relevance: The Board symbolized a transition from pre-independence princely administrative apparatus to modern governance, where previously unaccountable entities were subjected to judicial review.
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722
Held: The Court established multiple criteria to assess if an entity functions as an instrumentality of the State. Financial support, administrative control, functional character, and deep and pervasive control were some of the criteria.
Significance: This case extended the Article 12 test to even educational institutions formed as societies, showing that the boundaries of State accountability were wide.
3. U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840
Principle: If a statutory corporation discharges public duties, it must act fairly and reasonably, and is subject to Article 14.
Legal Relevance: It further expanded the scope of public law remedies against corporations rooted in older administrative traditions.
4. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421
Held: Oil and Natural Gas Commission, LIC, and Industrial Finance Corporation were considered as “other authorities” under Article 12.
Legal Impact: The judgment signaled that even autonomous bodies established for public utility fall within constitutional accountability.
5. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649
Held: BCCI was not “State” under Article 12 due to lack of government control.
Contrast: This case showed that not all public-function-performing bodies are included unless there is significant governmental control—a contrast to Electricity Boards with statutory foundations.
6. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111
Held: Reiterated and clarified the functional test for determining whether a body is a ‘State’.
Significance: Strengthened judicial standards to assess hybrid institutions operating at the junction of public and private law.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Colonel James Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan serves not merely as a historical record; it also functions as a socio-political account of the governance framework in Rajputana. He records various Rajput clans, their succession patterns, administrative practices, and war codes. These included laws of inheritance, rights to taxation, vassalage, and obligations of loyalty to clan leaders or sovereigns.
These customs, though undocumented in codified law, formed the backbone of social order in pre-modern Rajasthan. Princely states functioned as sovereigns within their territories, with rulers exercising both executive and judicial powers. The British, under their indirect rule policy, often reinforced these structures for administrative convenience.
However, after India’s independence and the promulgation of the Constitution, these traditional power structures began to face legal restructuring. Where once the Rajput king’s edict was supreme, now the rule of law became paramount.
Tod’s work also documented customary penal systems, wherein collective punishment, restitution through honor duels, and expiatory rituals formed part of dispute resolution. This informal justice system had no place in modern jurisprudence, yet remnants of it persist in rural panchayats and informal khaps.
In his ethnographic style, Tod gave legal visibility to indigenous norms that lacked codified expression. These historical systems now face friction with formal law in matters like honor killings, land inheritance by daughters, and caste-based prohibitions—all of which are now struck down by constitutional courts.
LEGAL TRANSFORMATION
Article 12 was interpreted broadly to cover statutory authorities, corporations, and even societies that performed public duties. The Mohan Lal case became a litmus test for constitutional accountability.
The Board, though not a legacy institution per se, was established in a territory previously ruled by Rajput dynasties. Its hierarchical structure, practices, and even recruitment echoed the traditions of obedience without question. With the judgment in Mohan Lal, the judiciary injected principles of natural justice and procedural fairness into what was once an autocratic setup.
The doctrine of ultra vires, due process, and legitimate expectation gained prominence in Indian administrative law post this period. Employees like Mohan Lal, who were earlier at the mercy of administrative discretion, could now invoke Article 14 and 16 for relief.
Moreover, the transformation reinforced the supremacy of statutory mandates over royal prerogatives. No public institution, regardless of its origin from a sovereign’s decree, could operate in violation of constitutional principles. This legal doctrine dismantled the administrative immunity that princely entities previously possessed.
Courts also evolved a parallel jurisprudence of constitutional morality, where justice was not only legal but also ethical and egalitarian. Bodies functioning in public interest, regardless of origin, were expected to meet democratic standards. This marked the final shift from Tod’s world of sovereign duty to a republic’s world of accountable governance.
TOD’S ETHNOGRAPHY AS INDIRECT LEGAL RECORD
Though Tod was not a jurist, his observations have had a quasi-legal significance:
In succession disputes, his genealogical records have been cited in arguments.
In temple ownership litigations, references to clan patronage from Annals have surfaced.
In land disputes, especially involving palaces or havelis, Tod’s maps and narratives have helped establish original possession or control.
Under Section 32(2) and Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, such documents are occasionally admitted as statements made in the course of professional duty or public record.
Furthermore, Tod’s accounts are also considered historical aids in interpretation of treaties and sanads between the British Crown and princely states—documents that laid the foundation for political accession and property arrangements post-independence.
CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE
In Rajasthan, many public bodies, development boards, and trusts still trace their origin to royal patronage. The legal principles set in Mohan Lal are still invoked in employment disputes and public interest litigations involving such institutions.
Moreover, discussions around the abolition of privy purses, derecognition of royal titles, and conversion of royal estates into heritage hotels are intertwined with the governance structures Tod so vividly documented.
Even within the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 and the RTI Act of 2005, the requirement for transparency and accountability reinforces the judiciary’s dedication to moving away from the lack of transparency in administration that is grounded in colonial and feudal traditions.
Rajasthan’s heritage laws, such as the Rajasthan Monuments and Archaeological Sites Act, now face reinterpretation in the context of urban development and property rights, once again bringing Tod’s documentation into indirect legal relevance.
EDUCATIONAL UTILITY
For legal scholars, the intersection of historical ethnography and constitutional law provides a rich area of study. Comparative law courses often juxtapose Tod’s narratives with early English feudalism, making parallels with Magna Carta reforms.
Understanding how administrative law absorbed, redefined, or rejected customary practices helps in appreciating the evolution of public law jurisprudence in India.
Law students also benefit from such historical grounding in learning legal anthropology, transitional justice, and the sociology of law. Tod’s work acts as a cultural compass in tracing how informal systems became formalized or discarded.
CONCLUSION
Colonel James Tod might have encapsulated the pride and magnificence of Rajputana, yet the Indian Constitution established it on the principles of reason, equality, and justice. Where once bards upheld a ruler’s honor, now judges uphold constitutional morality.
The Rajputana described in Tod’s Annals was built on valor and hierarchy. The republic of India is built on dignity and equality. Bridging this chasm is the judiciary, which through every Article 226 petition and every Article 12 interpretation, transforms history into law, and legacy into legality.
FAQs
Q1. What is the importance of Article 12 in the context of Indian constitutional law?
It defines the scope of ‘State’ for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Q2. Why is Mohan Lal considered a landmark judgment?
Because it expanded the scope of Article 12 to include statutory authorities like Electricity Boards, thereby increasing accountability.
Q3. Are princely customs still legally valid?
No, unless codified. Article 13 nullifies any custom or usage inconsistent with fundamental rights.
Q4. Can private trusts formed by former royal families be considered ‘State’?
Not unless they satisfy the functional and financial control tests laid out in cases like Ajay Hasia.
Q5. How does this case impact administrative law?
It ensures that all authorities discharging public functions must follow principles of natural justice and are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Q6. Is Tod’s work relevant only in Rajasthan?
Primarily, yes. However, its ethnographic method influences similar works and interpretations across India.
