|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject India||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Is he really a "reigning monarch" ??? Hektor 12:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not constitutionally, no. The people of Jodhpur do give him some recognition however.--Couter-revolutionary 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Is elephentine in "The Elephentine infant Maharaja" a real word? What's it mean here? I can't find a definition, and elephantine (like an elephant) would seem the wrong word ??? Studentroku 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- It was vandalism or a joke. I have removed it. 18.104.22.168 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there still Maharajas in India?---- YES, there are
Now Wkik reliable refrences and sources to his titles have been provided and his name cannot be changed to Mr Gaj Singh from HH Maharaja Gaj Singh ll. If that is done, vandalisim will be reported. Karan112 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There are no Maharajas in India anymore. Indira Gandhi the then prime minister made it illegal in 1971 to call anyone maharaja. Can anyone please change this page name to Mr Gaj Singh. There is a case pending against him in Jodhpur for illegal usage of term Maharaja.
For more detail see my IP talk please []
The successful entry of several prominent princes and members of their families did not always endear them to the governments of democratic India. Eventually, the government of Mrs Gandhi tired of their increasing involvement in opposition politics and sought to curb their influence. The abolition of the privy purses, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the elimination of the princely order itself, became the policy of the Congress party. After a year-long battle, this was finally achieved by an amendment to the Constitution at the end of 1971.
Although some parties have attempted to portray the constitutional changes as an abolition of the princely order, this does not appear to be the legal position. The changes merely removed official recognition of the position of "ruler", as defined by the 1950 Constitution, and enabled the ending of privy-purse payments. The amendments did not touch upon any aspects of the treaties and engagements made during the accession of the princely states, nor did they even address the matter of rights to styles and titles. Since then, there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are: "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India & Anr." (1978), "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. C.I.T." (1994), "The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi" (1998), "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000), "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001), "Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan" (2005). It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the land would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. Karan112 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)