NEW DELHI/jaipur, June 3 -- If India's Constitution bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising from pre-Independence covenants, can erstwhile royal families like that of Jaipur ever reclaim their legacy properties? Or have time, law and history closed the door forever? These questions came into focus on Monday as the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether covenants signed between princely states and the Government of India before 1950 are amenable to judicial review even as Article 363 of the Constitution expressly ousts the courts' jurisdiction in such matters. The legal challenge comes from the Jaipur royal family. Rajmata Padmini Devi, along with her daughter, Rajasthan deputy chief minister Diya Kumari, and grandson Maharaja Padmanabh Singh, moved the apex court against an April 17 ruling of the Rajasthan high court, which held that their civil suits, seeking possession and damages for prime Jaipur properties, were barred by Article 363. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih, while issuing notice on Monday, signalled willingness to engage with the nuanced constitutional debate, particularly the continuing relevance of Article 363 in the absence of its companion Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers and was repealed in 1972. With its admission, the case now becomes a pivotal test of how India navigates the legacy of its integration of over 500 princely states post-Independence. If the court finds Article 363 no longer an iron curtain, it could open the floodgates of historical claims, not just from Jaipur, but across former royal families of India. On the other hand, a reaffirmation of the constitutional bar would strengthen the finality of India's legal break from the royal past. Appearing for the Jaipur royals, senior advocate Harish Salve urged the Supreme Court to lift the constitutional veil and re-examine whether Article 363 still blocks judicial access in disputes involving princely covenants, particularly when the Union of India was not a party to the disputed agreement. The court, however, had a pointed question for Salve: "How will you come out of Article 363?" Salve, assisted by senior counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, replied that Article 363 has multiple nuances and precedents. "But the previous judgments did not answer whether Article 363 survives after deletion of Article 362. Both were part of the same package," he added. Salve further contended that the 1949 Covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India per se, but among five Rajasthan rulers, with India acting merely as a guarantor. That distinction, he said, was vital to determining whether the bar under Article 363 even applies. The bench, however, expressed concern about the possible consequences of lifting this bar. "If we agree with your submission, the entire city of Jaipur will be your property. All former rulers of Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur could reopen similar claims." But Salve said: "Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I am only arguing on the right to adjudicate. Ownership was 100% prior to the covenant. Nobody has a right to assert title over what belongs to the State but I must be allowed to argue that in court." At this point, the court agreed to admit the matter for a hearing. The Rajasthan government's additional advocate general, Shiv Mangal Sharma, remained present during the hearing and accepted the notice on behalf of the state. He undertook before the court that the issue will not be precipitated in so far as alienation of any property is concerned since the state respects the pendency of the matter before the highest court. The challenge stems from a sweeping April 17 judgment by the Rajasthan HC, which threw out four suits filed by the royals and their trust over iconic heritage properties, including the Town Hall, Hazari Guards Building and parts of the City Palace....