Constitution of India · Part XIX: Miscellaneous
Article 363: Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc
In plain words
Subject to article 143, no court, including the Supreme Court, can decide disputes arising from treaties, agreements, covenants, sanads or similar instruments made before the Constitution by a Ruler of an Indian State with the Government of the Dominion of India or its predecessors, or rights and liabilities under the Constitution relating to them.
- "Indian State" and "Ruler" mean the territories and persons recognised as such by His Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India before the Constitution.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(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 of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor Governments 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.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the article 363
- Smt. Jeeteshwari Ju Devi v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors
- In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution v. .
- The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Anr. v. Vipin Dhanaitkar & Ors.
- Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Sankoo (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others
- Talat Fatima Hasan Through Her Constituted Attorney Sh. Syed Mehdi Husain v. Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (D) by Lrs. & Ors.
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
- State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary v. State of T. N. by Its Chief Secretary [Dipak Misra, Cji] 829 the State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretarystate of Tamil Nadu by Its Chief Secretary & Ors.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Maharani Ushadevi
- Jik Industries Limited & Ors. v. Amarlal v. Jumani and Another
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo
- I. R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India
- Draupadi Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Dr. Karan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr.
- P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka
- Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. and Anr.
- Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh (Dead) Though L.Rs. Etc. v. State of Punjab
- Union of India v. Prince Muffakam Jah and Ors.
- Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Etc. Etc. v. Union of India
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others
- Dr. Karan Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.
- Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar v. The Union of India & Anr.
- His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala
- H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur & Ors. v. Union of India
- Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
- Nawab Usmanali Khan v. Sagarmal
- Joseph Pothen v. State of Kerala
- State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala
- H.H. the Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur v. The State of Rajasthan and Others
- Lachhman Das on Behalf of Firm Tilak Ram Ram Bux v. State of Punjab and Others
- Maharaja Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Jagannath Behera and Others v. Raja Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbara Roy
- Maharaj Umeg Singh and Others v. The State of Bombay and Others.
- Virendra Singh and Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- State of Seraikella v. Union of India and Another