WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

FACTS IN BRIEF

____________________

That this Written Submission to the _____________ is being filed by the undersigned in
compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble Court during the hearing of this matter held on
______________.

That we hereby deny and dispute all the contentions raised and grounds urged in the Original
Civil Suit except those which are specifically and unequivocally admitted to in this reply. It is
stated that as stated above since this reply is confined to being a Written Submission, it may
not be treated as a Written Statement under Order XXVIII contained in Part III of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The defendant reserves the liberty to file a written statement
conforming to Rule 1 to 6 contained in Order XXVIII contained in Part III of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013.

SUBMISSIONS

[A] WHETHER THE ORIGINAL CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE STATE OF

KARNATIC UNDER ARTICLE 131 IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1. The defendant respectfully submits to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Original Civil
Suit filed by the State of Karnatic under Article 131 is not maintainable, and therefore
refutes the grounds made by the plaintiff on the following grounds: Firstly, that States
cannot act as Parens Patriae of its inhabitants under Article 131 [i]; Secondly, the State
Legislature has no authority to challenge an order for violating Part III of the Constitution
[ii]; Thirdly, the Union Legislature is not acting in excess of their legislative Powers [iii];
and Finally, the State Government’s Civil Suit disturbs the constitutional balance and
overrides the tenets of Federalism.[iv] and therefore, the defendant reserves its rights to
move an appropriate Application under Order XXVI Rule 6 contained in the Supreme
Court Rules, 2023 while filing its written statement.

[i] STATES CANNOT ACT AS PARENS PATRIAE OF ITS INHABITANTS

UNDER ARTICLE 131
2. The concept of the welfare state acting as parens patriae, literally "parent of the
country," delves into the foundational principle where the state assumes a parental role in
safeguarding the interests of its inhabitants, particularly those who are unable to protect
themselves. This philosophical underpinning positions the welfare state not just as an
administrative entity, but as a guardian and advocate for the collective well-being of its
citizens. When the health, comfort, prosperity, or property of its citizens are endangered,
the state intervenes, reflecting its commitment to protect and enhance the quality of life
for all.1

3. In the case of Massachusetts v. Mellon2, the Supreme Court of the United States delved
into a comparable inquiry. Here, the State of Massachusetts contested the legality of the
"Maternity Act," a piece of legislation passed by the US Congress. Among various
allegations, Massachusetts claimed that the act trespassed upon the rights of its citizens.
The Supreme Court noted the following observations in their examination.

17. … It cannot be conceded that a State, as parens patriae, may institute judicial
proceedings to protect citizens of the United States from the operation of the statutes
thereof. While the State, under some circumstances, may sue in that capacity for the
protection of its citizens … it is no part of its duty or power to enforce their rights in
respect of their relations with the federal government. In that field it is the United
States and not the State, which represents them as parens patriae, when such
representation becomes appropriate; and to the former, and not to the latter, they
must look for such protective measures as flow from that status.

4. The situation in India contrasts with that of the United States, given its quasi-federal
system and the concept of single citizenship. Against this backdrop, the mentioned
observations hold even more weight in India. Individual states within India do not have
the leverage to invoke the principle of parens patriae to file lawsuits against the Union of
India under Article 131. In India, states possess authority solely over the legislative
domains listed in List II of Schedule VII, with the Union holding superior powers in the
majority of areas, a stark contrast to the United States, where the dynamic is mostly
reversed. In the U.S., individuals are recognized as citizens of both the nation (United
States) and the specific state they live in. Conversely, in India, individuals are only

1
Missouri v. Illinois, 1901 SCC OnLine US SC 25; People of State of New York v. State of New Jersey, 1921
SCC OnLine US SC 117
2
1923 SCC OnLine US SC 157 : 67 L.Ed. 1078 : 262 US 447 (1923).
 considered citizens of the country, with no separate citizenship for the states they reside
in.

5. Article 131 of the Constitution requires that the dispute raised thereunder should involve
a question, be it of law or fact, on which the existence or extent of a legal right would
depend; and it is asserted that the State of Karnatic cannot claim any “legal right” for the
alleged violation of fundamental rights of its inhabitants

6. It is humbly contended on behalf of the Union of Indica that in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Anr., the Supreme Court of India ruled that
recourse to original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India is not
permissible to challenge the vires of a statute. Here, the court noticed that the plaintiff. by
way of amendment, was seeking to challenge the validity of a Central law; and held that,
normally, for questions relating to validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum
is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of
India and not an original suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution.

7. Article 131 would be attracted where adjudication is necessary in relation to a legal right of
one State or the Union of India visà-vis other States, as the case may be.

[ii] STATE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE AN

ORDER FOR VIOLATING PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION
1. Both citizens and non-citizens have the right to contest any act of Parliament or executive
decision by submitting personal petitions to the High Court. To avoid a proliferation of
legal actions, a state has the option to champion their cause by initiating a legal challenge
in the Supreme Court. In doing so, when the state amalgamates these individual
complaints into one collective lawsuit, it does not claim that the state's legal rights are
jeopardized. Instead, it simply acts as a representative for the complaints of its residents.
As a consequence of adopting this approach, the state forfeits the capacity to advocate for
its inhabitants' concerns under Article 131.
2. Justice Untwalia, in his opinion in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, outlines the
adverse consequences in allowing such suits to be instituted under Article 1313:

“216. … If a restricted meaning were not to be given to the scope of the suit which
can be filed under Article 131, very anomalous, and sometimes absurd, results may
follow and it will be difficult to put a dividing line and a stop to the very wide scope
of the suit resulting from such an interpretation. … The argument that the State is
interested in protecting its people and officers when their legal right has been
illegally invaded by the Central Government and, therefore, it has a locus to invoke
Article 131, in our opinion, is too obviously wrong to be accepted.”

3. In American legal doctrine, a state is permitted to call upon the original jurisdiction of the
US Supreme Court only if the statute in question impacts the state's properties or its
powers, either in its sovereign or corporate form 4, and not for the advantage of individual
citizens5. Consequently, for a legal right to be subject to the jurisdiction under Article
131, it must pertain to the state itself, rather than to private individuals.

4. In the case of Union of India v. State of Rajasthan 6, the Supreme Court of India was
tasked with determining the appropriate venue for the State of Rajasthan's lawsuit seeking
compensation for damages caused by the Railways—whether such a suit should proceed
in a regular civil court or could be filed under Article 131. In exploring the legal rights
applicable under Article 131, the Court made several observations:

12. … we feel that Article 131 of the Constitution is attracted only when a dispute
arises between or amongst the States and the Union in the context of the
constitutional relationship that exists between them and the powers, rights, duties,
immunities, liabilities, disabilities, etc. flowing therefrom. Any dispute which may
arise between a State in the capacity of an employer in a factory, a manufacturer of
goods subject to excise duty, a holder of a permit to run a stage carriage, a trader or
businessman carrying on business not incidental to the ordinary functions of
Government, a consumer of railway services, etc. like any other private party on the
one hand and the Union of India on the other cannot be construed as a dispute
arising between the State and the Union in discharge of their respective executive
powers attracting Article 131 of the Constitution. It could never have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution that any ordinary dispute of this nature
would have to be decided exclusively by the Supreme Court. (emphasis supplied)

3
State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608.
4
Louisiana v. Texas, 1900 SCC OnLine US SC 16 : 44 L.Ed. 347 : 176 US 1 (1900).
5
Massachusetts v. Missouri, 1939 SCC OnLine US SC 121 : 84 L.Ed. 3 : 308 US 1 (1939).
6
(1984) 4 SCC 238
5. Adopting this principle, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. Krishnaiah v. Union of
India7, observed that the State cannot invoke this jurisdiction except when the dispute
arises between the Governments in their sovereign capacity.
[iii] THE UNION LEGISLATURE IS NOT ACTING IN EXCESS OF THEIR
LEGISLATIVE POWER
1. Under the auspices of the Constitution of Indica, Article 131 is pivotal in ensuring the
demarcation of constitutional functions and powers between the Union and the States,
guarding against encroachments into each other's domains. As previously delineated,
the ambit of Article 131 is reserved for a specific class of disputes that impinge upon
the legal rights of the Federation's constituent entities.

2. It is respectfully posited that the Supreme Court of Indica lacks the jurisdiction under
Article 131 to adjudicate upon the validity of legislation. According to the
constitutional framework, the legality of a law is subject to scrutiny only if it infringes
upon or is in contravention of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution. Given that these rights are accorded to individuals, both citizens and
non-citizens, and not to states or their organs, the issue of fundamental rights violation
does not arise within the purview of this civil suit.

3. Part XI of the Indican Constitution, encompassing Articles 245 to 263, is fundamental

in articulating the distribution of legislative and administrative prerogatives between
the Union and the States. This segment is indispensable for the comprehension of
Indica's federal construct, detailing the allocation and exercise of legislative powers
by both Parliament and the state legislatures, alongside the management of
administrative relations. Part XI encapsulates the quintessence of Indica’s quasi-
federal architecture, delineating the powers, constraints, and frameworks for
cooperation between the Union and the States, thereby ensuring a harmonious balance
between national cohesion and state sovereignty.

4. The State of Karnatic is entitled to contest the validity of a statute based on the
Division of Powers principle. This entails a challenge grounded on the assertion that
the statute exceeds Parliament's legislative purview as demarcated in the Seventh
7
1996 SCC OnLine AP 648 : (1996) 4 ALT 175.
 Schedule of the Constitution, which specifies the jurisdictional boundaries for
legislative action by the central and state governments. The State may contend that the
central legislation oversteps into the territories earmarked for states within the State
List, or contravenes the federal structure or other constitutional stipulations.
Nevertheless, it is respectfully submitted that in the current matter, such an argument
would not prevail, considering that the Central Government's directive pertains to
Education institutions, squarely falling within the ambit of the Concurrent List, Entry
25.

5. Advancing to the examination of the Basic Structure Doctrine, it is crucial to

underscore that this, alongside the aforementioned issues, remains a remote
consideration. This is predicated on the premise that unless it is demonstrated that the
states' legal rights are detrimentally impacted by the impugned order, the Supreme
Court of India is precluded from entertaining the matter.

[iv] THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S CIVIL SUIT DISTURBS THE

CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE AND OVERRIDES THE TENETS OF
FEDERALISM

1. Following the same reasoning, the Madras High Court dismissed the objections to the
admissibility of the State of Tamil Nadu’s petition under Article 226 8, which contested the
constitutional validity of Sections 60(4), (5), (6), & (7) of the Prevention of Terrorism
(Amendment) Act, 2003. The basis for the challenge was the argument that the contentious
sections breached the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judicial
branches of the Government. The High Court rejected the proposition that a suit under Article
131 would be a more suitable course of action by stating

12. (b) … it is not each and every kind of dispute between the above disputants that
the Supreme Court tries exclusively on its original side. The resolution of dispute is
confined to only such questions whether on law or on fact on which the existence or
extent of a legal right depends. Materially, the said disputes touch upon either
Centre-State relations or inter-State relations. (emphasis supplied) The consistent
position of the Supreme Court is that the right agitated in a suit instituted under
Article 131 should have some bearing on the constitutional relationship that exists
between the parties to the dispute, that is the State and the Union. This articulation is
central to the interpretation of the phrase “legal right” occurring in Article 131.
8
State of T.N. v. Union of India, 2004 SCC OnLine Mad 65
2. In State of Karnataka9, the State challenged the decision of the Union of India to set up a
Commission to inquire into allegations of corruption against the Chief Minister of Karnataka.
Bhagwati, J.’s concurring opinion explained the meaning of the term “legal right” in the
context of Article 131 as under:

205. It would also be convenient at this stage to consider what is the meaning of the
expression “legal right” as used in Article 131. It is obvious that the word “right” is
used here in a generic sense and not according to its strict meaning. “Right” in its
narrow sense constitutes the correlative of duty, but in its generic sense it includes not
only right stricto sensu, but “any advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a
rule of law”. … What has, therefore, to be seen in order to determine the applicability
of Article 131 is whether there is any relational legal matter involving a right, liberty,
power or immunity qua the parties to the dispute. If there is, the suit would be
maintainable, but not otherwise.

3. The duty to uphold the fundamental structure and principles of our Constitution is shared
between the Union and the States, with the States bearing an equally critical responsibility to
protect the Constitution and its foundational values. This premise is based on the recognized
duty of the States to defend the Constitution. Accepting this duty raises the question of
whether the legitimacy of legislation itself constitutes a "relational legal issue that pertains to
a right, liberty, power, or immunity in relation to the parties involved in the dispute." While
it's arguable that it is the State's obligation to safeguard the Constitution, suggesting that a
State's role in ensuring the Union fulfils its responsibility to uphold the Constitution's basic
framework and provisions stems from its constitutional relationship with the Union might be
an overextension since refusal to enforce such legislation may lead to potentially severe
consequences, such as the Union invoking Article 356.

4. It could also be contended that whether a State has to enforce a potentially invalid law
under Article 256 involves a determination of the State's rights or immunities. Nonetheless,
adopting such an expansive interpretation of Article 131's scope would imply that any
disagreement or variance between a State and the Union, whether in legislative or executive
matters, could justify recourse under Article 131. This approach would subject Article 131 to
the very risks highlighted by Justice Untwalia10 in the State of Karnataka case, blurring the
lines on when States can resort to Article 131, potentially leading to its arbitrary use.
9
State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608
10
State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608, pp. 691-692, para 165.