Article 131 of the Indian Constitution- original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over disputes involving the law between states or between states and the Union under Article 131 of the Constitution.
- If a State believes another State or the Central government has breached its legal rights, it may invoke Article 131 and file a complaint with the Supreme Court.
- In order to qualify as a dispute under Article 131:-
- A dispute must necessarily be between states and the Center and
- Must involve a point of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Center depends
- In the case, State of Karnataka v. Union of India 1978, Justice P N Bhagwati stated that for the Supreme Court to consider a lawsuit under Article 131, the state need not establish that its legal right is violated, only that the dispute involves a legal question.
- Political disputes between state and central governments led by various parties cannot be resolved using Article 131.
Cases
- State of Rajasthan & Others vs Union of India (1977):
- After the Janata Party took office in 1977, the new administration urged opposition-ruled states to dissolve their legislatures and seek new elections.
- Under Article 131, States, led by Rajasthan, petitioned the Supreme Court for a temporary order preventing the Center from using Article 356.
- According to the SC, political disagreements between governments are not covered by Article 131. The Court further stated that legal right refers to that of a State and not the government in power.
- State of Karnataka vs Union of India & Another (1977):
- In order to challenge the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1952, which provided the Centre with authority to establish a judicial inquiry against the Chief Minister and other ministers, the state government turned to the SC under Article 131.
- The SC upheld the lawsuit and stated that where a State(s) or the Union disagree on a matter of constitutional interpretation, Article 131 may be invoked.
- State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India & Another (2011):
- The MP Reorganisation Act 2000 Act was contested by the Madhya Pradesh government before the SC under Article 131 because it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The SC ruled that it was inappropriate to question the constitutionality of a central law under Article 131.
- State of Jharkhand vs State of Bihar and Another (2014):
- The defendant claimed that Article 131 did not apply to the original lawsuit.
- The SC rejected the argument that a lawsuit brought under Article 131 cannot address the constitutionality of a law.
- Kerala's anti-CAA suit (2019):
- Kerala challenged the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court because it contravened the Constitution and breached the secularism principle.
- Chhattisgarh's suit against NIA Act (2019):
- In order to oppose the National Investigative Act, the Chhattisgarh government cited Article 131.
Significance of Article 131:
- Federalism: Federal disputes between a state and the central government or between two states are resolved with Article 131. It suggests that the drafters of the Constitution considered the federal system. It serves to preserve the federal character of Indian politics.
- Legal rights of the state: According to Article 131 of the Constitution, a State may appeal a case to the Supreme Court anytime it believes its legal rights are in danger or have been violated. So, it stops the State government's legal rights from being violated.
- Way to remove state's dissatisfaction: Article 131 allows states to move to the apex court to remove their dissatisfaction against any action of the Center which they might perceive is against the states and generate dissatisfaction in them. It offers a solution to this dissatisfaction.
- Check on Centralisation tendency: Any legislation that restricts or interferes with state legal rights cannot be passed by the Center. Article 131 deals with the possibility of such an act.
- Cooperative federalism: Article 131 enables the various federal divisions of the Indian polity, such as the Center and state, and between two states, to collaborate and work on significant issues by settling numerous disputes between them.
Issues
- The ambiguity of article 131: gives Parliament leeway to amend or pass laws without worrying about repercussions.
- The dispute must involve a question of law or a question of fact that transcends a legal or a constitutional right and should include political conflict unless legal rights are at stake.
- Bench strength: as the Court does not have the requisite bench strength to overturn the previous decision, it left the matter open for a larger bench to decide. However, this inconclusive situation still needs to be resolved, allowing both judgments to be used as a precedent for the future.
- Can the Supreme Court test the validity of a central law under article 131?
- A central law can be challenged under article 131 in the following cases-
- Legislative competence: law must be challenged in the Court if it is in excess of the legislative competence of the framing authority.
- Violation of the Constitution: the Court can test a law if it is ultra-vires of the Constitution. In this regard, there are following doctrines that the Supreme Court has evolved over a period of time.
- The doctrine of basic structure: the doctrine of basic structure signifies the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot be changed/amended, as they form the foundation of the Constitution on which its core principles/existence stands.
- The doctrine of pith and substance: pith means" true nature" or "essence of something", and substance means "the most important part or essential part of something".
- The doctrine of colourable legislation: comes into play when a legislature does not possess the power to make laws on a particular subject but indirectly makes laws on it.
Way forward
- Politically driven petitions must be dropped, and the SC must not consider them. Instead, steadfast initiatives must be taken to address them within the political sphere.
- In the case of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), NITI Aayog recommended in its report (submitted in 2017) for the creation of a list enumerating the federal crimes that offences on this list must only be investigated by the NIA or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- State representatives should speak up in Parliament when legislation is being drafted and passed rather than raising a fuss later.
- Federalism works both ways. Both parties must respect the borders set forth by the Constitution in the agreement.
