CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
Article of Constitutional Law on the Topic-
Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Submitted to: Submitted by:
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Utsav Singh
Faculty of Law BBA-LLB-
04616503520
USLLS, GGSIPU, New Delhi. (Second Year)
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
1|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
2|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Introduction
In our Indian Constitution, it has been referenced that the Supreme court is the watchman of
the Fundamental Rights ensured to us under Article 14, consequently any sort of infringement
of our crucial freedoms we can go straightforwardly to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution (this being a basic right as well). However, when there is a debate which
emerges between the States of India or between the StateGovernment and the Union
Government then it is the locale of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution
that enables it to determine these sorts of questions.
Article 32 gives the Supreme court original jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction due to
the explanation that even the High Courts have that ward under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is just Article 131 that gives the court original and exclusive jurisdiction as it
can tackle questions which emerge out of the Presidential and vice presidential election. 1
We say that a court appreciates original jurisdiction when it has the position to hear the case
in its first occurrence, yet when we say that it likewise appreciates exclusive jurisdiction then
it implies that it is the entire and sole position to hear and decide the case and that no other
court has the power.
History of Article 131
It's undeniably true that Section 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was like this
Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. And consequently, the case to be discussed is the
United Province v Governor General of Council 2. This was a case which was documented
under segment 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This segment discussed the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the government court actually like the current Article 131 of
the Constitution. For this situation the plaintiff carried a case to recuperate a certain amount
of cash from the defendant since it had been wrongly credited to the cantonment store. In any
case, presently the defendant said that the case was not maintainable as a Province could
1
Dr. K.C Joshi, The Constitutional Law of India, (462), (Central Law Publications, Allahbad, 2nd edition, 2013).
2
V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, (514-519), (EBC, Lucknow, 12th edition, 2013.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
3|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
document an argument against the Government of India and that it was not within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal court. In any case, the court concurred otherwise and
said that in this specific case there was an inquiry which discussed the legal right of the
provinces along these lines this case was maintainable under segment 204 of the act.
While giving out the judgment Justice Sulaiman said an exceptionally interesting thing and
this was "the simple reality that under the past Act the provincial Governments were
subordinate administrations heavily influenced by the central Government and could just
have a portrayal to the Governor-General-in-Council or the Secretary of State would not be
adequate in itself for holding that the previous couldn't realistically have any legal right
whatsoever against the Central Government even in regard of rights gave upon them by the
provisions of the Act or the guidelines made under".
Under this segment 204 of the Government of India act, 1935 it was understood that the
Provinces could go to the Federal Court to battle for their legal rights yet couldn't go in case
it was against the Central Government. A cautious reading of the part 204 of the Government
of India Act says that the composers of the demonstration had in mind to make the Federal
court the council of that large number of disputes which arise between the constituent units of
an organization and likewise determined the idea of jurisdiction which the court had upon
these disputes. The main impediment which the government court had by then was that it
couldn't give out an appropriate judgment and that it could just give a decisive agreement
Definition of Article 131 under Constitution of India
Article 1313- Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original
jurisdiction in any dispute
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
3
INDIA CONST. art. 1.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
4|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether
of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the
said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant,
engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed
before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a
dispute.
An uncovered text perusing of the Constitution lets us know that Article 131 discussions
about the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. It discusses the
way that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction in questions which emerge
between the Government of India and a portion of the States in India, between the
Government of India and at least one States on one side and some different States then again
and between 2 States themselves. These debates can be taken up by the Supreme Court just
when there is an inquiry on law or truth relying on the degree of the legitimate right
involved4.
The stipulation of this Article says that the Supreme Court will not have any sort of ward in
questions emerging out of any "treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or any other
similar instrument which came into being before the commencement of our Constitution".
Original jurisdiction is in the issues of the political decision questions as referenced before
and the Original jurisdiction since it is the main the Supreme court is the main court in India
that has the ability to resolve debates between the State Government and the association
Government or between more than one State Governments. This was given in Union of India
v State of Rajasthan.5
As it has been given in the exposed text that main matters including lawful freedoms will be
engaged any sort of political clash won't be engaged. "The term legal right has been
construed liberally. It means assertion or vindication of any legal right of the Union
Government or of a State It apparently includes a Constitutional right".
4
V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, (514-519), (EBC, Lucknow, 12th edition, 2013).
5
AIR 1977 SC 1361: (1977) 3 SCC 592.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
5|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Subsequently, the main restriction from which this Article endures is-
a) who will be the gatherings to the question
b) what will be the topic of the question between the parties6.
Who can be the parties to the question?
The response to this inquiry was given by Justice Bhagwati on account of State of Karnataka
v UoI7. He said "The Article is a necessary concomitant of a federal or a quasi federal form of
Government and it is attracted only when the parties to the dispute are the Government of
India or one or more States arranged on either side".
Meaning of the Word “STATE”
Article 131 discussions about State questions, yet the word 'State' doesn't have the very
importance like that in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Under Article 12 there are
numerous associations that can be qualified as a State assuming they satisfy the 6 conditions
given in the Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib Case 8. Consequently, it implies that private PARTIEs
are not be a piece of the cases which fall under Article 131 which is settled by the Supreme
Court.
Hence, under this Article 131 of the Constitution the court can't take a debate which includes
a private party and a Government on the opposite side. Thus, on account of State of Bihar v
UoI the State Government had documented an argument against the Central Government in
the interest of the Railways and an organization which was treated as a State under Article 12
of the Indian Constitution. Yet, the court said that the case couldn't be brought under the
locale under Article 131 as the significance of the word 'State' did exclude any private
resident, organization or a Government office regardless of whether it had recorded a
grievance alongside any State Government.
For what reason are private parties barred?
6
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (226), (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 6th edition, 2010)
7
AIR 1978 SC 143.
8
AIR 1981 SC 487.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
6|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The primary explanation regarding the reason why the court needs to prohibit the private
parties or as such that large number of substances named as States under Article 12 are not
inside the importance of State under Article 131 is that the settling of the between
Governmental debates ought to be at the Highest discussion of any nation and it ought to be
done as fast as could be expected. In a nation like India where there are 29 States then there
will be 29 distinct State Governments which thus implies that there will be a tremendous
chance that between Governmental debates will consistently be available sooner or later or
the other, subsequently to lessen the weight on the Apex court of our country the importance
of State under Article 131 is restricted.
And furthermore the way that when there is a debate which emerges between 2 State
Governments then it would be hard to choose regarding which State's High court will get the
make a difference to determine, consequently just the Supreme Court will have the exclusive
jurisdiction.
This Article may be applied when there is question on the legitimate privileges of the State or
the Union vis-à-vis the other States. Consequently on account of Tashi Delek gaming
arrangements Ltd v State of Karnataka9, the lottery specialists of the States Sikkim and
Meghalaya tested the prohibiting of lottery games by the State of Karnataka. The Karnataka
High Court held that this debate held the legitimate freedoms of the relative multitude of
three States, thus the cure will be under article 131 as it were. However, the Supreme court
held in any case and said that these specialists were given the option to address the State
Governments and henceforth were private parties in this way not going under the locale of
article 131. Such a specialist reserved the option to sue and be sued in his own name and
along these lines it would not go under this article 131.
Ambit of the Court under Article 131
9
ILR 2005 KAR 1548, 2005 (2) KarLJ 403.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
7|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Hence, the ambit of Article 131 isn't that wide as questions that emerge between the
departments of the Union Government and the State Government don't fall inside the
significance of the word 'State'.
Presently, the actual Article begins with the expression "Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution.. " which implies that Parliament can make laws which will really impact the
purview of the court, similar to it has done on account of between State water questions
(Article 262 of the Constitution). In this way, by the beginning of the Inter-State Water
Dispute Act, 1956 the parliament really gave the powers to the council to determine the
contentions between the States however when the opportunity arrives for the binding of the
award then the Supreme Court gets the powers as presently the debate is between the States
and the water struggle has been addressed and it is no longer inside the ambit of Article 262.
Thus, on account of State of Rajasthan v UoI 10 it was said that the Supreme Court has the
ability to give any sort of help assuming it is important to implement the lawful right of any
State on question in case such lawful right has been set up by the Government of the State.
As referenced by the writer before that this Article 131 experiences 2 sorts of limits and one
of them being the topic of the debate for example just those case between the Governments
can be engaged by the Supreme Court which depend on the lawful privileges of the State
Government or the Union Government. As it has been said by Salmond that "a legal right is
an interest recognised and protected by the rule of legal justice – an interest the violation of
which would be a legal wrong done to him whose interest it is, and respect for which is a
legal duty”.
Legal Right related to Article 131
The crucial expression in Article 131, is the expression “legal right”. This expression has the
effect of excluding all controversies involving only non-legal issues6 from the jurisdiction of
the Court. However, unlike the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires (inter
alia) that the person coming to court (i.e. the plaintiff) must have a cause of action in his
favour, article 131 does not prescribe that the legal right, asserted or denied in the proceeding
10
AIR 1977 SC 1361: (1977) 3 SCC 592.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
8|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
in question, must be that of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court or of the party
against whom such jurisdiction is invoked – as the case may be.
The meanings of legal rights by Holland is as per the following "If independently of his
having, or not having, either the right, or moral right on his side, the force of the State will
secure him in so completing his wishes, and will urge such demonstrations or avoidance with
respect to others as might be fundamental all together that his wishes might be so done, then,
at that point, he has a "legal right" so to do his wishes11."
Along these lines, for any case to be engaged by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the
Constitution what must be remembered is that the debate which is arising or the inquiry
which is posed should be founded on the legal rights of somebody (just a State Government
or the Central Government) and any sort of non-legal inquiries is not viable.
This is the thing that was additionally held in the Rajasthan Dissolution case that the suit
documented was viable in view of the way that the suit was attempting to authorize the legal
right of the State as there had been a gross disregarding their legal rights because of the
power (unconstitutional exercise of force) utilized by the President under Article 356 of the
Constitution which lead to the encroachment of the rights of the singular individuals from the
Legislative Assembly and the rights of the State as well. One more inquiry that was posed for
this situation was whether the word State Government was incorporated inside the
importance the 'State'? Along these lines, the greater part for this situation said that at
whatever point there is a case under this Article 131 then it implies that there is a dispute
between the Central Government and the State Government and it doesn't imply that there is
a dispute between the workplaces in the Government. It is not the ideological groups that
ought to be battling, it is the entire Government fundamentally that is battling against the
infringement of a portion of their legal rights. Article 131 gives both the Governments a
gathering to battle on legal issues and not on simple policy centered issues. Consequently, the
request given by the Government of India to the State Governments requesting the Chief
Minister to delicate counsel to the Governor of the State is not a simple policy centered issue
but rather a legal right.
11
Avtar Krishna Koul, “Article 131 Of The Indian Constitution: Some Observations”, Journal Of The Indian
Law Institute, [Vol. 13: 1]
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
9|Page
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Presently what most of the appointed authorities say for this situation is that it is excessive
that for each situation being documented under this Article that the State Government or the
offended party needs to demonstrate that their legal right is being disregarded however they
can likewise scrutinize the legal right or the Constitutional legitimacy of any activity taken by
the Union Government or the State Government or the defendant per se.
The minority for this situation had an alternate view and they said that "State" did exclude
inside itself the State Government. They said that a dispute between the Government of India
and any StateGovernment won't go under the domain of Article 131 as even after the
Assembly is dissolved, still the State will keep on having a Government12.
The writer might want to bring up the way that as per Article 300 of the Indian Constitution it
has been unequivocally referenced that the Government of India will be sued or will sue
under the name of the Union of India and that the StateGovernment will be sued or will sue
under the name of the State only. The clarification of this Article says that there is a contrast
between the terms Union of India and Government of India and that the last option is not a
legal substance and that the previous is, which resembles a corporate body with rights and
commitments. The same way even the State has been given a juristic character with ability to
sue and to be sued. It additionally makes reference to an exemption that besides in Article
131 of the Constitution each suit including the Government and its representatives will be
seen by the other normal courts.
Once more, on account of State of Karnataka v UoI J. Bhagwati stresses on the point that
every one of the cases which are under Article 131 of the Constitution should just discuss the
legal rights of both of the gatherings, any sort of non-legal angle won't be engaged. In this
manner, characterizing the extent of Article 131 the hon'ble judge said "What has,
accordingly to be found to decide the relevance of Article 131 is whether there is any social
legal matter including a right, freedom, power or invulnerability qua the gatherings to the
dispute. Assuming there is, the suit would be viable however not otherwise."
In this previously mentioned case, the primary dispute of the State Government was that
under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, the Central Government didn't have the ability to
12
As per J. Gupta, J. Goswami and J. Fazal Ali see V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, (516), (EBC, Lucknow,
12th edition, 2013).
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
10 | P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
comprise any request commission which would investigate the questions of a State legislation
and
executive. In this way, the request commission investigated the conduct of the Chief minister
of the State alongside different ministers, subsequently it was an issue of Center-State
relationship. However, the association Government said that the Supreme Court won't have
the ability to investigate this matter as there was jurisdiction under Article 131 of the
Constitution as it involved the middle and State Government. In any case, the Supreme Court
said otherwise and said that the Government of India and the Union will be the very much the
same and that the 'State' would incorporate the Government of the State. J. Bhagawati
additionally specifies that the State Government is only the specialist of a State the words
State and Government of a State can be utilized interchangeably. The case likewise lets us
know that a legal right is what are enforceable by an activity in a court of law13.
On account of State of Bihar v UoI, when the State of Bihar had documented a suit against
the Central Government for the Railways needing some sort of compensation then the
Supreme Court said that this case was not viable as the topic of legal rights of a private
distributor was risen along these lines it was outside the jurisdiction referenced under Article
131.
Which means of "Reason for Action" that has been utilized all together 23 Rule 6(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules 1966 methods the equivalent, for example every one of the kinds of
disputes that have been referenced from (a) to (c) under Article 131 of the Constitution. That
is it should include an inquiry on legal rights of both of the gatherings to the suit and that
assuming the reason for activity is fairly unique, then, at that point, it would not be viable
under this request. This was referenced in the State of Haryana v State of Punjab14.
What it appears is that under this article the Supreme Court goes about as a translator and a
stage to decide the rights of the Federation and the units of the Federation. In this manner,
such not really set in stone on the foundations of the legal rights of both of the parties.
Conclusion
13
DD Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (5640) ( Lexis Nexis Nagpur, 8th edition, 2009).
14
(2004) 12 SCC 673
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
11 | P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
What has been seen so far is that Article 131 is the original and the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court of India when it is checking out the disputes which has risen between the
Union and State or between two States. No High court in India has that sort of jurisdiction.
There are essentially two significant things that must be remembered and that is the
gatherings to the dispute must be a State (bureaucratic units) or the association Government
itself. The significance of the word State in article 131 is not as old as wide as given in article
12 of the Constitution that implies that a corporate body or a private body which is treated as
a State won't be treated as a State under article 131 of the Constitution. The following
significant thing is that main the legal rights of the State are to be thought of and not the
political rights. All disputes that are not in the class of legal rights of the State then promptly
it is outside the jurisdiction of the court under article 131.
The disarray which emerged was whether the State and the StateGovernment will be
something very similar and that answer has now been replied in the avowed as it is one and
same and it has additionally been unequivocally referenced in article 300 of the Constitution.
What is a legal right and what is not has not been given unequivocally anyplace however the
courts as per their discretion while settling cases decides if a right is a legal right or a political
right of a state.
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
12 | P a g e
