Professional Documents
Culture Documents
When can a State invoke Article 131? Can a State government challenge laws passed
by the Centre?
When Dr. B.R. Ambedkar introduced the draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly in
1948, he underlined the deliberate attempt of its makers to describe India as a Union of
States and not a federation. “The federation is a Union because it is indestructible,” Dr.
Ambedkar said.
ALSO READ He said that the Constitution was empowered to change its form and
shape into unitary or federal as needed: “…the draft Constitution can
be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of
time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a
federal system. But in times of war, it is so designed as to make it work
In a system of
asymmetrical as though it was a unitary system,” he reasoned.
federalism, India
must remain a The final version provided demarcation of powers between the Centre
mosaic
and States in terms of legislative, administrative and financial
functions, while the Seventh Schedule further divided the legislative
functions into Union, State and Concurrent lists.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned differences between the Centre and States
owing to this quasi-federal structure and dual polity. And so they added the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the resolution of such issues. Article 131
entrusts exclusive jurisdiction to the SC to hear and determine a dispute originating
between States, or between States and the Union. Most recently, the Kerala government
filed a suit in the SC to challenge the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 under
Article 131.
Article 131
Article 131 deals with the ‘original jurisdiction’ of the Supreme Court of India in any dispute that
involves a ‘question of law or fact on which the existence of legal right depends’.
A citizen can approach the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 and Article
32, respectively, in case there is a violation of fundamental rights. A State can, meanwhile,
invoke Article 131 to approach the Supreme Court in case it feels that its legal rights are
under threat or have been violated by another State or the Central government.
ALSO READ In State Of Rajasthan vs Union Of India (1977), the SC explained the
scope of legal rights: “…in a generic sense, the word “right” is used to
mean an immunity from the legal power of another immunity is
exemption from the power of another in the same way as liberty is
exemption from the right of another.”
A new judicial
device for “The legal right of the States consists in their immunity, in the sense
‘complete
justice’ of freedom from the power of the Union Government. They are
entitled, under Article 131, to assert that right either by contending in
the absolute that the Centre has no power to dissolve the Legislative
Assemblies or with the qualification that such a power cannot be exercised on the ground
stated,” Justice Y.V. Chandrachud said.
In the same judgement, Justice P. N. Bhagwati highlighted two important limitations to the
Article. First, a private party can’t invoke Article 131 to raise a dispute in the SC. Second, the
dispute “must be one, relating to a legal right and not a dispute on political plane not based
on legal right. A legal right which is the subject of dispute need not arise in the context of
the Constitution and the federalism it sets up,” he said.
How has the SC previously dealt with cases under Article 131?
Over the years, multiple cases have been filed where States have challenged the Centre in
the Supreme Court. However, an analysis of such cases shows that mixed or heterogeneous
observations have been made by the SC, which has further added to the ambiguity
surrounding Article 131.
Six States — Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa filed
suits in the SC to declare the letter of the Home Minister “illegal, ultra vires of the
Constitution”. They also requested the SC for an interim injunction restraining the Centre
from resorting to Article 356, which allows President’s rule to be invoked if a State
government is ‘against the provisions of the Constitution’.
The SC held that “mere wrangles” between governments do not fall within the ambit of
Article 131. “It is only when a legal, not a mere political, issue arises touching upon the
existence or extent of a legal right that Article 131 is attracted,” the Court said. The Court
also noted that legal right here refers to that of a State and not the government in power.
The two-member bench held that Article 131 was not appropriate to challenge the
constitutionality of a central legislation. Central laws could be only challenged as writ
petitions under Articles 32 and 262 and not under the original jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 131, the SC said.
The judgment stated that the original jurisdiction of the SC extends to any dispute between
the Government of India and States, whether of law or fact, as long as it concerns a legal
right. The matter was referred to a larger bench for final determination since the Madhya
Pradesh case judgment was also delivered by a two-member bench.
ALSO READ Kerala argued in the original suit that it was compelled by Article 256
to implement CAA. It also stated that the rules were arbitrary,
unreasonable, and violative of fundamental rights, resulting in a
dispute between Kerala and the Centre. The dispute involved both law
Kerala files suit and fact and concerned the legal rights of the State, Kerala argued. It
against CAA
also referred to the judgment in the State of Jharkhand v State of
Bihar, saying the question of constitutionality may be considered by
the court under Article 131. The case is pending.
The Hindu In Focus podcast | Kerala’s suit against CAA and the question of States’
opposition to Central laws
Comments Listen
Write a comment
3000
Add V kl P i