ARTICLE 131

What is Article 131 of Indian constution ?Why it is news?

            While Article 131 says the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Centre and the state governments.

            Article 131, which deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A dispute to qualify as a dispute under Article 131, it has to necessarily be between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends. I

            Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction.

What is original jurisdiction?

            Original jurisdiction of a court refers to its power to hear a case first.

            In criminal matters, offences under the Indian Penal Code are triable by the courts specified in the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

            Courts of chief judicial magistrate, judicial magistrate of the first class, metropolitan magistrate and judicial magistrate of the second class have a limit on the amount of sentence they can pass, therefore, the case is committed to higher grade courts.

            A high court exercises its original criminal jurisdiction only if the subordinate courts are not authorised by law to try such matters for lack of jurisdiction.

            High courts, session judge or additional session judge can pass any sentence authorised by law, provided that the death sentence passed by court of session is confirmed by the high court.

            In civil matters, generally, suits are instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Although the courts of higher grade can also entertain any case, the idea is not to overburden them.

.

.

            The constitution of India, under Article 131, confers the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain special matters.

What are the matters where the original jurisdiction deals?

(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

 (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:

Is there any bar on the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

       Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad 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.

Why it is news?

Kerala’s move to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court. 

.

.

whether a state can challenge the validity of a central law?

            In a 1978 judgment, State of Karnataka v Union of India, Justice P N Bhagwati had said that for the Supreme Court to accept a suit under Article 131, the state need not show that its legal right is violated, but only that the dispute involves a legal question.

Example :A pending consideration before the Supreme Court in a case dating back to 2000. In this case, Jharkhand had challenged a provision in the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, related to the apportionment of pension liability between the two states. The case was filed after Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar in 2000.

1.     Bihar has objected to the challenge by relying on a 2011 decision of a two-judge bench of the top court related to Madhya Pradesh’s challenge to the validity of certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act. The court, in that case, had ruled that a state cannot challenge a central law under Article 131. Bihar has cited the judgment and argued against Jharkhand’s challenge.

2.     The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Bihar versus Jharkhand case in November 2014, saying it cannot agree with the view taken of the two-judge bench. It ruled that Article 131 is worded in such a manner that the Supreme Court can decide disputes on questions of fact and law under Article 131.

3.     Supreme Court opined that a challenge to a central law can be made under Article 131. “Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the statement of law enunciated by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India... We are unable to agree with the proposition that this Court cannot examine the constitutionality of a statute in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131”, the judgment said.

4.     The Supreme Court rejected West Bengal’s 2017 petition against the Aadhaar Act filed under Constitution’s Article 32, which empowers individuals and organisations to move court against government actions and laws, which may violate fundamental rights.

5.     the Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the state’s powers to maintain law and order.

.

.

How is a suit under Article 131 different from the other petitions challenging the CAA?

            The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which gives the court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.

            Under Article 131, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.

            However, the relief that the state (under Article 131) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.

Can the Centre too sue a state under Article 131?

            The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of

Is it unusual for states to challenge laws made by Parliament?

            Under the Constitution, laws made by Parliament are presumed to be constitutional until a court holds otherwise. However, in India’s quasi-federal constitutional structure, inter-governmental disputes are not uncommon.

            The framers of the Constitution expected such differences, and added the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for their resolution. The quasi-federal structure envisaged in 1950 has consolidated into defined powers of the states.

can the Supreme Court declare legislation unconstitutional under Article 131?

            In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), that in an original suit under Article 131, the constitutionality of an enactment cannot be examined.

            Since the above decision is rendered by a coordinate Bench of two judges, judicial discipline demands that we should not only refer the matter for examination of the said question by a larger Bench of this Court, but are also obliged to record broadly the reasons which compel us to disagree. 

.

.

What constitution  say that?

            In India’s federal structure, states have a constitutional obligation to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 as passed by Parliament. As per Article 246 of the Constitution, the 17th entry under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule provides exclusive powers to Parliament to legislate on matters related to “citizenship, naturalisation and aliens”. It is tragic to note, therefore, that the chief ministers belonging to Opposition parties, despite taking the oath for bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, are making a mockery of it by publicly expressing their ill-will and expressing their reluctance to to implement the CAA — this is nothing but petty votebank politics. Articles 245 and 256 of the Constitution also oblige states to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament. The declaration by the governments of Kerala, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that these states will not implement the CAA is, therefore, unconstitutional. Even then, while framing the CAA’s rules, the government is considering experts’ suggestions to make the Act operational.

.
.