Article 131 of the Constitution of India
Article 131 of the Constitution of India confers original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court of India in specific types of disputes involving the Union and the States. It is a cornerstone provision in maintaining the federal balance within the constitutional framework of India, ensuring that disputes of a constitutional or legal nature between these entities are resolved by the highest judicial authority in the country. This Article provides the Supreme Court with the exclusive power to adjudicate disputes that directly concern the distribution of powers and responsibilities under the Constitution.
Background and Constitutional Framework
The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted a quasi-federal system, balancing elements of both federalism and strong central authority. To prevent conflicts between the Union and the States or among the States themselves, it was necessary to establish a neutral adjudicatory mechanism. Article 131 was incorporated to serve this purpose, providing the Supreme Court with exclusive and original jurisdiction to deal with inter-governmental disputes.
The provision was modelled partly on similar arrangements in other federal systems, such as the United States Constitution, where the Supreme Court possesses original jurisdiction over disputes between states. In India, this jurisdiction is vital for upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and maintaining the integrity of the federal structure envisioned under it.
Text of Article 131
The full text of Article 131 reads:
“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;(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or(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.
This provision makes it clear that only disputes involving legal rights—not political or administrative issues—fall within the purview of Article 131.
Nature of Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction under Article 131 is original, exclusive, and constitutional in nature.
- Original Jurisdiction: The matter can be directly filed before the Supreme Court, without first approaching any lower court.
- Exclusive Jurisdiction: No other court in India, including High Courts, has the authority to entertain such disputes.
- Constitutional Jurisdiction: The disputes must involve questions concerning the interpretation or application of the Constitution and the rights flowing from it.
It is important to note that Article 131 does not extend to cases involving private parties, citizens, or local authorities; it is confined strictly to disputes between government entities as specified.
Types of Disputes Covered
Article 131 typically applies to disputes that involve:
- The interpretation of constitutional provisions dividing powers between the Union and the States.
- Questions regarding the distribution of legislative, executive, or financial powers.
- Disagreements over the implementation of constitutional duties or responsibilities.
- Conflicts arising from inter-State agreements, such as water-sharing treaties or resource allocation.
Examples include:
- State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) – concerning the powers of the Union to appoint commissions under Article 356.
- State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970) – regarding the maintainability of suits against the Union under Article 131.
- State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar (2015) – dealing with asset distribution after bifurcation.
Limitations and Scope
The Supreme Court has clarified through various judgments that not all disputes between governments fall under Article 131. For a case to be maintainable:
- The dispute must involve a legal right arising from the Constitution or an existing law.
- It must be between entities explicitly mentioned in the Article—private individuals or corporations are excluded.
- The issue must not be political in nature or beyond judicial determination.
Furthermore, the Article does not cover disputes that can be resolved under Article 262 (which pertains to inter-State water disputes) since such matters are excluded from judicial review by specific parliamentary enactments like the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
The concept of original jurisdiction in federal disputes has parallels in other countries:
- In the United States, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
- In Australia, Section 75 of the Constitution grants similar powers to its High Court.
However, India’s provision is more restrictive, as it limits the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction strictly to governmental disputes involving the Union and States, excluding individuals or non-governmental entities.
Significance and Constitutional Role
Article 131 plays a crucial role in preserving federal harmony. By vesting the Supreme Court with the authority to adjudicate inter-governmental conflicts, it prevents political tensions from escalating into constitutional crises. The provision ensures that disputes regarding the division of powers are settled through legal reasoning rather than political negotiation.
It also acts as a safeguard against central encroachment upon State powers and vice versa, reinforcing the constitutional equilibrium between the Union and the States. In this way, Article 131 embodies the principle of constitutional supremacy and reinforces judicial independence as a pillar of Indian federalism.
Contemporary Developments and Notable Cases
Recent years have seen a revival of litigation under Article 131. States have invoked it to challenge Union actions perceived as violating constitutional principles. For instance:
- State of Chhattisgarh v. Union of India (2019) – involved a challenge to central levies and taxes imposed on coal mining.
- Kerala v. Union of India (2020) – concerned the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, where Kerala filed a suit claiming that the Act violated the constitutional division of powers.
- Punjab v. Union of India (2024) – related to federal financial disputes and the implementation of centrally sponsored schemes.
These cases underline the growing assertiveness of States in invoking Article 131 as a means of seeking judicial review of central policies, reinforcing the dynamic nature of Indian federalism.
Criticism and Challenges
Critics argue that the strict interpretation of Article 131 has at times limited its effectiveness. The requirement that disputes must involve a “legal right” excludes many practical conflicts that may have significant federal implications. Additionally, the overlap with other constitutional provisions, such as Article 262 and the civil jurisdiction of High Courts, can create procedural ambiguities.
Another concern is the time-consuming nature of litigation under Article 131, which may delay resolution of pressing federal issues. Nonetheless, it remains a vital constitutional safeguard and a symbol of the judicial balancing of India’s federal structure.
| Related | |
|---|---|
