The Supreme Court of India stands as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and the keystone of India’s federal structure. Among its many powers, the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 holds special importance, for it allows the apex court to act as a neutral arbiter in disputes that threaten the delicate balance between the Union and the States. This jurisdiction ensures that when the central and state governments clash over constitutional powers or rights, such conflicts are settled within the bounds of law and constitutional principles, not through political confrontation.
Constitutional Basis of Original Jurisdiction
Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute:
- between the Government of India and one or more States; or
- between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
- 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.”
The phrase “to the exclusion of any other court” emphasizes that no other judicial body, not even the High Courts, may entertain such disputes. This grants the Supreme Court exclusive competence to hear cases that concern the very structure of Indian federalism. The provision draws its lineage from Section 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935, but the framers of the Constitution refined it to reflect India’s unique balance between unity and autonomy.
Scope and Nature of Jurisdiction Under Article 131
Article 131 confers original and exclusive jurisdiction. It is called “original” because such disputes originate directly in the Supreme Court, rather than being appealed from lower courts. It is “exclusive” because no subordinate court may try these matters. The jurisdiction is civil in nature—it concerns disputes over legal rights, not political disagreements.
The expression “legal right” has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to include rights conferred by the Constitution, statutes, or even legitimate administrative authority. However, not every disagreement between the Union and a State qualifies. The Court insists that there must be a real and substantial question of law or fact concerning constitutional or legal entitlements.
Parties Entitled to Approach the Supreme Court
Only certain entities can invoke Article 131:
- The Government of India and one or more States
- Two or more States inter se
No private individual, company, or organization may be a party under this article. Even Union Territories are generally excluded, as they are not “States” within the meaning of Article 131. This exclusivity underscores the constitutional intention—Article 131 is not a forum for ordinary disputes, but a mechanism to resolve intergovernmental conflicts.
Types of Disputes Covered
The disputes under Article 131 often involve intricate constitutional questions concerning the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Union and the States. The following categories frequently arise:
- Federal and constitutional disputes: Conflicts over legislative competence, executive authority, or constitutional interpretation.
- Financial and fiscal matters: Allocation of tax revenues, grants-in-aid, and liability for shared expenses.
- Territorial or administrative disputes: Jurisdictional boundaries and administrative control between States.
- Natural resources: Ownership, use, and regulation of water, minerals, forests, and other shared resources.
- Intergovernmental cooperation: Enforcement of agreements or understandings between States or between the Union and States.
For example, water disputes between States—although often settled through specialized tribunals under Article 262—illustrate the kinds of conflicts that would otherwise fall within Article 131’s ambit.
Limitations and Exceptions to Article 131
Despite its wide reach, Article 131 is not without limits. The Supreme Court has clarified that:
- Disputes must involve legal rights, not mere political differences.
- Private entities cannot be joined as parties to Article 131 proceedings.
- Disputes expressly excluded by the Constitution—such as inter-State water conflicts governed by Article 262—do not fall under this jurisdiction.
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Court refused to entertain a challenge against the dissolution of State Assemblies, reasoning that the dispute was political, not legal. Thus, Article 131 is carefully insulated against becoming a political battleground.
Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions
The Indian Constitution is an intricate tapestry of provisions designed to distribute power, maintain checks and balances, and safeguard the nation’s federal harmony. Article 131, which confers original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court for intergovernmental disputes, operates within this larger constitutional framework. To understand its boundaries and implications, it is essential to examine its relationship with other key Articles — 32, 226, 143, and 262. Each of these provisions interacts with Article 131 in a distinct yet interconnected way, shaping the Court’s jurisdictional role in India’s constitutional scheme.
1. Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies
Article 32 is often described as the “heart and soul” of the Indian Constitution. It empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This provision transforms the Constitution from a theoretical charter into a living, enforceable document.
While both Article 32 and Article 131 confer original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court, they are conceptually and functionally distinct. Article 32 is individual-centric — it exists to protect the fundamental rights of citizens against State action. Article 131, on the other hand, is federation-centric — it is designed to resolve legal conflicts between different levels of government.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court issues writs such as mandamus, certiorari, or habeas corpus to protect individual freedoms. Under Article 131, the Court adjudicates civil disputes involving legal rights between governments — such as the Union and a State or between States themselves.
For example, if the Union Government unlawfully withholds financial allocations to a State, the State may invoke Article 131. But if an individual’s right to property or liberty is infringed, Article 32 is the appropriate remedy. Thus, Article 32 and Article 131 represent two dimensions of judicial protection: one safeguarding the citizen, the other safeguarding the federation.
2. Article 226 – High Court Writ Jurisdiction
Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.” It is one of the broadest sources of judicial power at the State level, allowing High Courts to act as constitutional guardians within their respective jurisdictions.
The difference between Article 226 and Article 131 lies primarily in the nature of disputes and the identity of the parties involved. High Courts, under Article 226, primarily handle cases brought by individuals, corporations, or organizations seeking remedies against government action or administrative overreach. By contrast, the Supreme Court under Article 131 hears disputes only between governments.
| Aspect | Article 226 | Article 131 |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | High Courts (territorially confined) | Supreme Court (nationwide, exclusive) |
| Parties | Individuals, corporations, authorities | Union and State governments only |
| Nature of Dispute | Violation of rights or legality of actions | Federal disputes involving constitutional or legal rights |
| Type of Remedy | Writs (Mandamus, Certiorari, Habeas Corpus, etc.) | Adjudication of civil disputes |
High Courts therefore cannot entertain disputes where two States or the Union and a State are adversaries — such cases fall exclusively within the Supreme Court’s domain under Article 131. This ensures that questions affecting the federal structure are addressed by a single, authoritative judicial forum, thereby maintaining consistency in constitutional interpretation.
3. Article 143 – Advisory Jurisdiction of the President
Article 143 provides the President of India with the power to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance. This unique feature of the Constitution promotes cooperation between the Executive and Judiciary by allowing the President to consult the Supreme Court on complex constitutional issues before taking action.
The fundamental distinction between Article 143 and Article 131 lies in their purpose and nature of proceedings. Under Article 143, the Supreme Court acts as an adviser, not an adjudicator. There is no adversarial contest — the Court merely expresses its view on a legal question referred by the President. The opinion is non-binding and carries persuasive authority.
Under Article 131, however, the Court performs a judicial function. It hears actual disputes between the Union and States or among States, examines evidence, and delivers binding judgments determining legal rights.
For instance, when the President sought the Court’s opinion in the Berubari Union Case (1960) regarding the transfer of Indian territory to Pakistan, the matter was handled under Article 143. But if a State later contested the Union’s implementation of such an agreement, that dispute would fall under Article 131. Thus, Article 143 operates in the realm of consultation, while Article 131 operates in the realm of adjudication.
4. Article 262 – Adjudication of Inter-State Water Disputes
Article 262 deals with one of the most sensitive issues in India’s federal system — inter-State river water disputes. It empowers Parliament to establish specialized tribunals to adjudicate such conflicts and authorizes it to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, in these matters.
Although disputes over river waters naturally appear to fall within Article 131’s scope (since they are disputes between States), Article 262 acts as a constitutional exception. By enabling Parliament to legislate on this subject, the framers ensured that such technical and politically charged issues are resolved through expert tribunals rather than general judicial processes.
Under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, tribunals have been established to resolve conflicts like the Cauvery River Dispute and the Krishna River Dispute. Their awards are treated as final and binding, with the Supreme Court’s role limited to enforcement or interpretation, not re-litigation.
This framework reflects the pragmatic balance of India’s constitutional design — while the Supreme Court preserves federal harmony through Article 131, certain complex, domain-specific disputes are deliberately channeled to specialized bodies under Article 262 for efficient resolution.
Summary of the Interrelationship
Together, these provisions delineate the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional boundaries:
- Article 32 – Protects individual rights.
- Article 226 – Empowers High Courts to enforce rights within States.
- Article 143 – Enables the President to seek advisory opinions.
- Article 262 – Carves out exceptions for water disputes.
Within this constitutional mosaic, Article 131 stands as the sentinel of India’s federal balance — the Supreme Court’s unique power to adjudicate legal conflicts between the Union and the States. It ensures that disputes within the federation are resolved not through political confrontation, but through constitutional dialogue anchored in the rule of law.
| Article | Subject | Connection with Article 131 |
|---|---|---|
| Article 32 | Right to Constitutional Remedies | Used by individuals for enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 131 applies only to governments. |
| Article 226 | High Court Writ Jurisdiction | High Courts can hear disputes involving individuals; they have no authority in intergovernmental disputes covered by Article 131. |
| Article 143 | Advisory Jurisdiction | President may seek advisory opinions on legal questions; however, Article 131 involves actual disputes with opposing parties. |
| Article 262 | Water Disputes | Specifically excludes certain disputes from the Court’s jurisdiction to be handled by special tribunals. |
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 131 in several landmark rulings that have defined the contours of India’s federal structure. These decisions not only clarify the scope of the Court’s original jurisdiction but also reinforce the delicate balance between the powers of the Union and the States. The following cases trace the judicial evolution of Article 131 and its enduring relevance to Indian federalism.
1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963)
Background and Context: One of the earliest and most defining cases under Article 131, this dispute arose when the Parliament enacted the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The State of West Bengal challenged the law, arguing that it unlawfully allowed the Union to acquire land vested in the State without its consent. The State contended that it was a “sovereign” entity entitled to control its property independent of the Union.
Issues Raised: The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Union Government could compulsorily acquire property belonging to a State and whether the State could claim sovereign immunity from such acquisition under the Constitution.
Judgment and Reasoning: A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court decisively rejected the State’s claim. The Court held that in India’s constitutional scheme, sovereignty resides in the people, not in individual States. The Constitution creates a federation, but not one based on independent sovereign units like in the United States. States, therefore, cannot assert ownership independent of the Union’s authority.
Legal Significance: This judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament and clarified that the Union holds overriding powers in matters of national importance, including property acquisition. It established that the relationship between the Union and the States is not of equals but one defined and limited by the Constitution. The decision remains a cornerstone of Indian federal jurisprudence.
2. State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970)
Background and Context: The State of Bihar filed a suit against the Union of India under Article 131, alleging breach of contract concerning the supply of iron and steel materials. The central question was whether such a contractual dispute constituted a “dispute involving a legal right” under Article 131.
Issues Raised: Could a State invoke Article 131 to enforce a commercial or contractual obligation against the Union? Or does the Article only apply to constitutional and legal disputes of a public nature?
Judgment and Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that Article 131 cannot be used for ordinary commercial or contractual disputes. The Court observed that the phrase “dispute on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” refers to constitutional or statutory rights, not purely private law rights arising from commercial dealings.
Legal Significance: This judgment set a vital precedent by narrowing the scope of Article 131. It confirmed that the Article is designed for disputes affecting the federal structure of the Constitution, not for routine contractual claims. It ensured that Article 131 remains a constitutional mechanism, not a forum for civil litigation between governments.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Background and Context: In this politically charged case, several States governed by opposition parties challenged the Union Government’s move to dissolve their Legislative Assemblies following the 1977 general elections. The States argued that such dissolution, recommended by the central government, violated the principles of federalism and State autonomy.
Issues Raised: The core issue was whether the Supreme Court, under Article 131, could review the Union’s advice to the President to dissolve State Assemblies, and whether such a matter was a justiciable legal dispute or a political question beyond judicial scrutiny.
Judgment and Reasoning: The Court held that the dispute was political, not legal, and therefore not maintainable under Article 131. It reasoned that Article 131 covers only those disputes where a legal right is clearly in question, not where the issue pertains to political policy or executive discretion. The Court declined to intervene, emphasizing judicial restraint in matters touching on political processes.
Legal Significance: This case drew a clear line between political questions and justiciable disputes under Article 131. It reinforced the doctrine that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge political actions of the Union that lie within constitutional discretion. It remains a key precedent in defining the limits of judicial review in federal relations.
4. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978)
Background and Context: In the aftermath of the Emergency (1975–77), the Union Government appointed commissions to inquire into alleged misuse of power by various State Governments. The State of Karnataka, led by a non-Congress government, filed a suit under Article 131 challenging the Union’s authority to conduct such inquiries into State administration.
Issues Raised: Could the Union Government, under its executive powers, initiate inquiries into the functioning of State Governments, or would that amount to encroachment upon State autonomy protected by the Constitution?
Judgment and Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that while the Union possesses significant executive powers, they must be exercised within constitutional limits. The Court observed that the Union cannot interfere in matters exclusively within the State’s jurisdiction under the Seventh Schedule. However, it also recognized that the Union may collect information or hold inquiries if necessary for discharging its constitutional responsibilities.
Legal Significance: The judgment reaffirmed the principle of cooperative federalism. It struck a balance by acknowledging that both the Union and States are coordinate authorities under the Constitution, not subordinate entities. The decision served as a reminder that federal power must be exercised with restraint and respect for the autonomy of States.
5. State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar (2015)
Background and Context: After the creation of Jharkhand in 2000, several disputes arose between the two States regarding the division of assets, liabilities, and employees of public sector undertakings. When negotiations failed, Jharkhand filed a suit under Article 131 against Bihar seeking an equitable division.
Issues Raised: The central issue was whether the newly formed State of Jharkhand could invoke Article 131 to settle disputes over assets and liabilities with its parent State, Bihar.
Judgment and Reasoning: The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the suit under Article 131, observing that the dispute involved questions of legal rights and obligations arising from the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The Court emphasized that such matters, though financial in nature, directly affect the constitutional relationship between States and hence fall squarely within Article 131.
Legal Significance: This judgment extended the reach of Article 131 to include disputes arising from State reorganization. It reaffirmed that Article 131 applies not only to abstract constitutional conflicts but also to concrete intergovernmental disputes with statutory and financial implications.
6. State of Kerala v. Union of India (2024)
Background and Context: In one of the most recent invocations of Article 131, the State of Kerala filed a suit against the Union of India challenging the constitutionality of certain central legislations and executive actions that, according to the State, undermined its fiscal and legislative autonomy. This included challenges to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) compensation structure and the Union’s alleged overreach in borrowing limits imposed on States.
Issues Raised: The principal question was whether a State could challenge the constitutionality of a central law under Article 131, and whether such a challenge qualifies as a dispute involving the “existence or extent of a legal right.”
Judgment and Reasoning: The matter remains pending at the time of writing, but the Supreme Court’s hearings indicate a willingness to interpret Article 131 expansively. The Court has suggested that when a State’s constitutional or financial autonomy is directly affected by Union legislation, the matter may indeed fall within Article 131’s scope. This represents a modern reinterpretation of federal balance in a changing economic and political landscape.
Legal Significance: This ongoing case is poised to redefine the reach of Article 131 in the 21st century. It highlights the growing importance of judicial mechanisms in resolving fiscal federalism issues and the Court’s evolving role as the guardian of both constitutional equilibrium and cooperative governance.
Summary and Evolving Jurisprudence
Collectively, these judgments trace the evolution of Article 131 from its early focus on defining sovereignty and ownership to its modern role in protecting fiscal and constitutional federalism. The jurisprudence reveals a consistent judicial philosophy: that India’s unity depends not on central dominance, but on a fair and constitutional balance between the Union and the States.
Through these rulings, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed its role as the ultimate arbiter of intergovernmental disputes — a role that remains vital to the preservation of India’s democratic and federal character.
| Case | Year | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal v. Union of India | 1963 | Held that States cannot claim ownership of property independent of the Union; reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament. |
| State of Bihar v. Union of India | 1970 | Clarified that only disputes involving legal rights are maintainable under Article 131. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Union of India | 1977 | Differentiated political questions from justiciable disputes under Article 131. |
| State of Karnataka v. Union of India | 1978 | Discussed the limits of the Union’s executive power and reaffirmed federal principles. |
| State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar | 2015 | Dealt with liabilities and division of assets post-state reorganization. |
| State of Kerala v. Union of India | 2024 | Recent invocation of Article 131 challenging the constitutionality of Union legislation on federal grounds. |
Federal Significance and Rationale
India’s Constitution embodies a unique blend of federalism and unitarianism. The existence of Article 131 is vital to maintain this equilibrium. It allows the Supreme Court to serve as a neutral constitutional umpire, preventing federal conflicts from degenerating into political or administrative crises.
The jurisdiction functions as a safety valve in India’s complex intergovernmental machinery. It ensures that States can assert their constitutional boundaries without fear of political retribution, and that the Union can act decisively within its lawful domain. In essence, Article 131 preserves both the autonomy of States and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Challenges and Contemporary Issues
Over the decades, Article 131 has faced interpretative and practical challenges. One major concern is the tendency of States to invoke it for political posturing rather than genuine legal grievances. For instance, several States have recently challenged central legislation—such as the Citizenship Amendment Act and farm laws—under Article 131, testing the boundary between political dissent and constitutional litigation.
Another issue is the potential overlap with specialized tribunals and other constitutional provisions. While tribunals like those under Article 262 handle specific domains, the question often arises whether certain disputes truly fall within their scope or within Article 131’s general jurisdiction.
The procedural delays and lack of clarity regarding what qualifies as a “legal right” further complicate the effectiveness of Article 131 proceedings. These challenges call for clearer procedural norms and judicial consistency.
Comparative Perspective
The concept of original jurisdiction is not unique to India. The U.S. Supreme Court, under Article III, Section 2 of the American Constitution, exercises similar authority over disputes between States. Likewise, the Australian and Canadian courts possess limited original jurisdiction to address federal controversies. However, India’s model is distinctive because of its emphasis on cooperative federalism and the constitutional unity of a quasi-federal system.
Article 131 stands as a testament to the foresight of India’s framers, who understood that the success of a federation depends on a neutral arbiter to mediate intergovernmental conflicts. It not only safeguards the balance between the Union and the States but also reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.
For India’s democracy to thrive, both levels of government must exercise their powers within constitutional limits and resort to judicial resolution, not political confrontation, when disputes arise. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, therefore, remains one of the most profound instruments for maintaining constitutional harmony and national unity.
Procedure & Practice Under Article 131
The filing and adjudication of suits under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution follow a unique procedural pathway, distinct from regular civil litigation. Since such disputes involve sovereign entities—namely the Union and State Governments—the process emphasizes formality, constitutional propriety, and procedural precision. Understanding this procedural roadmap is essential for lawmakers, litigators, and legal scholars who seek to convert constitutional theory into actionable practice.
Who May File a Suit
Under Article 131, only specific parties are entitled to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. These include:
- The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General for India or through a duly authorized officer of the Central Government.
- One or more State Governments, represented through the Advocate General, a nominated law officer, or an authorized official acting under the Governor’s sanction.
- In cases involving multiple States, each State must file a separate authorization or resolution approving the institution of proceedings.
Private individuals or corporations cannot file a suit under Article 131. The jurisdiction is exclusive to constitutional entities whose legal rights or obligations inter se (between themselves) are directly affected.
Where and How to File
All suits under Article 131 are filed directly in the Registry of the Supreme Court of India on its original side. The process is regulated primarily by:
- Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which governs “Original Jurisdiction.”
- Supplementary instructions issued by the Supreme Court Registry for verification, filing, and service.
The plaint (statement of claim) must be verified, signed, and authenticated by a competent authority—typically the Attorney General for India or the Advocate General for the concerned State. Once filed, the Registry conducts a scrutiny for defects and assigns an Original Suit (O.S.) number after compliance.
Essential Pleadings and Reliefs
The plaint under Article 131 performs the same role as a statement of claim in ordinary civil proceedings but is elevated by constitutional context. It must include:
- Particulars of the dispute — factual background, nature of the controversy, and constitutional provisions involved.
- Jurisdictional statement — expressly invoking Article 131 jurisdiction and specifying how the matter constitutes a “legal right” dispute between the parties.
- Prayer/reliefs sought — declaratory, injunctive, or mandatory orders against the opposing entity.
- Verification and annexures — supporting documents, correspondence, statutory notifications, and authorizations.
Service of Notice and Joinder of Parties
Once the plaint is registered, the Registry issues notice to the respondent State or the Union through the concerned Advocate General or Attorney General. Service is typically effected by:
- Registered post and electronic mode through official communication channels.
- Personal service to the authorized representative, where required.
Third parties cannot normally be impleaded in Article 131 suits, as the jurisdiction is confined to inter-governmental disputes. However, amicus curiae may be appointed by the Court, and documentary material from third parties may be considered where relevant to the constitutional question at issue.
Interim Reliefs and Temporary Orders
The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers, may grant interim reliefs such as:
- Temporary injunctions restraining one party from enforcing an executive order or law pending adjudication.
- Stay orders against administrative actions or financial transfers in dispute.
- Temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo or ensure continuity of essential public functions.
Applications for interim reliefs are generally supported by affidavits and are heard immediately after filing or upon notice to the opposite party.
Timelines, Hearing Structure, and Evidence
Once pleadings are complete, the Court issues directions for framing issues and fixing hearing dates. The procedure emphasizes documentary over oral evidence, given the governmental nature of disputes.
- Evidence is mostly through affidavits, governmental records, and certified documents.
- Oral evidence or witness examination is rare but may be ordered in exceptional cases.
- Written submissions and brief notes of arguments are typically filed before final hearing.
Timelines are flexible, as proceedings often involve inter-governmental communications and Cabinet-level consultations. However, the Court endeavors to expedite matters of public importance.
Costs and Security for Costs
As a matter of constitutional comity, the Supreme Court generally refrains from imposing heavy costs on State or Union parties. However, it may:
- Direct each party to bear its own costs, or
- Order payment of costs in cases of frivolous or politically motivated litigation.
In exceptional cases, the Court may require a State to provide security for costs before proceeding, particularly if the action appears vexatious or lacks bona fides.
Optional: Sample Format or Index of Pleadings
For reference, a typical filing bundle under Article 131 may include the following:
| Document | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Index of Papers | List of all documents in the filing set with pagination. |
| 2. Synopsis and List of Dates | Concise chronological summary of key events leading to the dispute. |
| 3. Plaint (Statement of Claim) | Main pleading setting out the jurisdictional basis, facts, and reliefs sought. |
| 4. Affidavit of Verification | Verification by authorized representative affirming truth of contents. |
| 5. Annexures | Supporting documents such as correspondence, governmental orders, and statutes. |
| 6. Application for Interim Relief (if any) | Separate interlocutory application seeking temporary stay or injunction. |
| 7. Vakalatnama/Authority | Document authorizing counsel or representative to act on behalf of the State or Union. |
Through this structured procedural roadmap, Article 131’s theoretical framework transforms into a concrete judicial process. It ensures that constitutional disputes between the Union and States are resolved through judicial fairness, transparency, and disciplined constitutional practice.
Remedies, Orders, and Enforcement in Article 131 Suits
When a dispute between the Union and one or more States, or between States inter se, reaches the Supreme Court under Article 131, the final objective is not merely adjudication but the restoration of constitutional balance. The Court’s power to grant remedies in such cases is central to maintaining federal harmony, ensuring that its declarations translate into effective compliance. This section elaborates on the range of remedies, interim directions, and mechanisms of enforcement available in suits under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution.
Types of Final Orders and Declarations
The Supreme Court’s final orders in Article 131 suits can take multiple forms, depending on the nature of the dispute and the relief sought:
- Declaratory Relief: The most common form of remedy under Article 131 is a declaratory judgment. The Court may declare the constitutional position or the legal rights of the parties — for example, determining whether a State law encroaches upon a Union subject, or whether executive action violates the distribution of powers under the Seventh Schedule. Such declarations carry binding force under Article 141, establishing legal clarity for future conduct of both parties.
- Mandatory or Prohibitory Injunctions: In appropriate cases, the Court may direct a State or the Union to perform (mandatory injunction) or refrain from performing (negative injunction) certain acts. For instance, it may restrain a State from enforcing an impugned tax law affecting inter-State trade, or mandate the Union to release constitutionally mandated funds.
- Monetary or Restitutionary Directions: Although monetary compensation is rare in intergovernmental disputes, the Court may direct the refund of unlawfully collected revenues, release of dues under statutory or constitutional obligations, or apportionment of financial liabilities arising from shared schemes or resources.
Interim Directions and Ad-Interim Arrangements
Pending the final adjudication of a dispute, the Supreme Court often issues interim orders to preserve the status quo and prevent the escalation of the conflict. These directions are crucial for maintaining administrative continuity and avoiding constitutional crises.
- Stay Orders: The Court may stay the operation of a disputed law, executive order, or fiscal demand until the final decision. Such stays protect the rights of the parties and ensure that no irreversible damage occurs during litigation.
- Status Quo Orders: In matters involving territorial, resource, or jurisdictional disputes, the Court may direct the parties to maintain status quo to prevent unilateral alterations to existing arrangements.
- Ad-Hoc Administrative or Financial Arrangements: Where ongoing coordination is necessary, such as in inter-State water sharing or financial distribution disputes, the Court may devise interim arrangements — for instance, directing proportionate releases, interim cost-sharing, or temporary committees to oversee execution.
Enforcement of Supreme Court Orders
One of the unique challenges of Article 131 litigation lies in ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s rulings by sovereign entities — the Union and the States. The enforcement mechanism relies heavily on constitutional obligations, executive discipline, and the inherent powers of the Court.
- Constitutional Compliance: Under Article 144, all authorities, civil and judicial, within the territory of India are required to act in aid of the Supreme Court. This constitutional mandate ensures that the Union and States must comply with the Court’s orders, whether declaratory or injunctive in nature.
- Executive Responsibility and Political Accountability: Compliance is often secured through the constitutional duty of the executive — both Union and State — to uphold the law declared by the Supreme Court. Non-compliance can invite political censure, administrative sanctions, and judicial scrutiny.
- Contempt Jurisdiction: In cases of deliberate defiance, the Court may invoke its contempt powers under Articles 129 and 142 to enforce obedience. This mechanism acts as a safeguard against executive inaction or resistance in intergovernmental disputes.
Delegated Implementation and Supervisory Mechanisms
Recognizing that some disputes require continuous oversight beyond a one-time judgment, the Supreme Court occasionally delegates implementation or monitoring to specialized bodies or officers. Such arrangements ensure sustained compliance with constitutional directions.
- Special Coordinators or Commissioners: The Court may appoint an independent authority or retired judge to oversee compliance with its directives, particularly in cases involving resource allocation or ongoing inter-State coordination.
- Interlocutory Committees or Expert Panels: For technically complex or long-term disputes (e.g., water sharing, environmental regulation, financial adjustment), the Court may create committees to monitor progress and report periodically.
- Tribunal-like Oversight: In certain situations, the Court’s directions are executed through statutory tribunals or joint boards created under legislative or judicial mandate. These bodies handle the operational details of implementation while remaining subject to the Court’s ultimate supervision.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s role under Article 131 extends beyond pronouncing judgments—it also ensures the enforceability and sustainability of constitutional governance. The combination of declaratory, injunctive, and supervisory powers equips the Court to act as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that intergovernmental disputes are resolved not only in law but also in practice.
Pleading Standards & Jurisdictional Tests under Article 131
Under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises its original jurisdiction in disputes involving the Government of India and one or more States, or between States inter se. However, this jurisdiction is not automatic or unqualified. The Court has consistently emphasized that only disputes which involve the determination of a legal right—and not merely political, administrative, or theoretical disagreements—fall within its ambit. Therefore, the pleading standards and jurisdictional tests under Article 131 serve as the judicial thresholds for admissibility.
1. Real and Substantial Controversy Test
The foremost requirement for invoking Article 131 jurisdiction is that the dispute must present a real, substantial, and present controversy between the parties. The Court refuses to entertain hypothetical, speculative, or academic issues that lack tangible legal consequences. This principle ensures that the Supreme Court’s time is reserved for genuine constitutional or legal disputes rather than abstract disagreements between governments.
For instance, in State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970), the Court dismissed the petition because the alleged dispute did not reveal any real conflict involving enforceable legal rights. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Court refused to adjudicate political questions arising from the proposed dissolution of State Assemblies, holding that Article 131 could not be used to question the subjective satisfaction of the President under Article 356.
2. Nexus to a Constitutional or Statutory Right
To be maintainable, a dispute under Article 131 must be rooted in a legal right derived from the Constitution, a statute, or an established legal principle. A mere difference of opinion, administrative misunderstanding, or policy disagreement between governments does not suffice. The pleadings must clearly identify the specific legal provision, obligation, or right allegedly infringed or denied.
In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977), the Court clarified that a claim must demonstrate a clear nexus between the grievance and an enforceable constitutional or statutory right. Thus, where the Union’s action impinges upon a State’s constitutional autonomy, or where one State’s conduct affects another’s legal entitlements (for example, in matters of water sharing, taxation, or resource allocation), the Court may rightfully assume jurisdiction.
3. Political Questions vs. Justiciable Legal Rights
A critical component of the jurisdictional threshold lies in distinguishing political questions—which are beyond judicial scrutiny—from justiciable legal rights. The Supreme Court follows the principle that while it does not adjudicate upon political or policy considerations, it will intervene where such questions involve a breach of legal or constitutional duties.
Indicators of a political question include:
- Matters requiring evaluation of policy wisdom or political expediency.
- Disputes dependent on subjective satisfaction of the executive or legislature.
- Questions where no enforceable legal standard exists for adjudication.
Conversely, a justiciable legal right exists when:
- The dispute involves the interpretation or enforcement of a constitutional or statutory provision.
- The action complained of has a direct legal consequence for the State’s rights or obligations.
- The issue is capable of judicial determination through the application of legal principles.
In State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963), the Court held that the Union’s power to acquire property within a State for a Union purpose presented a legal, not political, question—since it directly concerned constitutional rights and legislative competence.
4. Borderline and Grey-Area Cases
The distinction between political and legal questions is not always clear-cut. Several cases fall within a “grey zone,” where political overtones coexist with genuine legal implications. For instance:
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): Though politically charged, the Court’s inquiry focused on whether the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 was open to judicial review—a question blending constitutional interpretation with executive discretion.
- State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar (2015): The dispute over asset and liability distribution following state bifurcation presented both administrative and legal complexities, yet the Court treated it as justiciable because it involved statutory entitlements under the Reorganisation Act.
These borderline cases illustrate that the Court’s approach is functional rather than formalistic—seeking to uphold constitutional balance while preventing judicial encroachment into policy-making domains.
5. Pleading Requirements and Evidentiary Threshold
To cross the admissibility threshold, the party invoking Article 131 must present a clear statement of facts establishing:
- The existence of a legal right or duty arising from constitutional or statutory provisions.
- The precise nature of the alleged infringement or denial.
- The direct causal link between the respondent’s act and the claimed injury.
Bare assertions or generalized grievances are insufficient. The pleadings must demonstrate a concrete cause of action, supported by prima facie evidence that the dispute affects legal entitlements. This requirement ensures that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction remains a mechanism for resolving genuine constitutional conflicts rather than a platform for political contestation.
In summary, the Supreme Court employs a combination of substantive and procedural tests—real and substantial controversy, nexus to legal right, and the political question doctrine—to determine whether a dispute qualifies under Article 131. These judicial thresholds act as safeguards, preserving the Court’s constitutional role as a neutral arbiter of intergovernmental disputes while preventing its misuse for political or theoretical claims.
Joinder & Impleading in Intergovernmental Suits
The question of joinder and impleading third parties in disputes under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution assumes great significance in understanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. While Article 131 primarily envisages disputes between the Union of India and one or more States, or between two or more States, the real-world matrix of governmental conflicts often involves a complex interplay of private corporations, statutory bodies, and instrumentalities of the State. Determining whether such entities can be joined as parties — either as necessary or proper parties — is therefore crucial in defining the jurisdictional limits of Article 131.
Scope and Constitutional Basis
Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court only in disputes that:
- Involve questions on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends; and
- Are directly between the Union and a State, or between two or more States.
This jurisdiction is exclusive and constitutional in nature, meaning that it cannot be expanded by ordinary legislation or procedural rules. Consequently, the participation of non-State entities such as corporations, municipalities, or individuals poses a jurisdictional challenge. Their inclusion risks transforming a purely intergovernmental dispute into an ordinary civil dispute, thereby taking it outside the ambit of Article 131.
Limitations on Joinder of Private or Non-State Parties
The Supreme Court has consistently held that Article 131 is meant for sovereign disputes — disputes arising from constitutional or statutory relationships between governmental units. Therefore, private parties cannot ordinarily be impleaded under this jurisdiction. The rationale is that Article 131 is designed to preserve the federal balance by providing a neutral forum for the Union and States, not to adjudicate claims involving individuals or corporations.
In State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970 AIR 1446), the Supreme Court categorically ruled that corporate or private entities cannot be made parties to a suit under Article 131, even if their actions are connected to the subject matter of the dispute between governments. The Court observed that allowing such participation would “convert a constitutional proceeding into an ordinary civil suit,” undermining the very character of Article 131 jurisdiction.
Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977 AIR 1361), the Court reiterated that only disputes “arising directly between the parties mentioned in Article 131” can be entertained. The inclusion of any third party not falling within this constitutional framework would be incompetent and ultra vires the jurisdictional grant.
Necessary and Proper Parties — Judicial Interpretation
Despite this limitation, the Court has recognized that some flexibility may exist where an entity is so closely intertwined with the State or the Union that it can be treated as its instrumentality or alter ego. For instance, in cases where a statutory corporation acts as an agent of a State government, it may be permissible for that entity’s conduct to form part of the dispute, provided the State itself is the principal litigant.
However, even in such cases, the corporation itself cannot be made an independent party; its actions may be attributed to the State for the purpose of determining liability or relief. The Court has thus maintained a delicate balance — acknowledging the functional reality of delegated governmental operations without diluting the constitutional contours of intergovernmental litigation.
Procedural Mechanism and Practical Implications
Procedurally, suits under Article 131 are governed by Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which outlines the filing, service, and hearing of original suits. However, these rules do not provide for joinder of third parties as contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This procedural silence reinforces the principle that Article 131 suits are sui generis — a unique class of constitutional proceedings distinct from ordinary civil suits.
In practical terms, this means that:
- A private company or municipal body cannot be impleaded as a co-defendant or co-plaintiff under Article 131.
- Reliefs involving such entities must be pursued in appropriate forums (such as High Courts under Article 226 or civil courts) unless the Union or State itself represents the interest in question.
- Where a State relies on the conduct of a public sector undertaking, the undertaking’s actions are treated as those of the State, without formal impleadment.
Evolving Trends and Future Challenges
In an era where public-private partnerships, corporate regulatory disputes, and federal economic conflicts are increasingly common, the rigid exclusion of private entities may at times constrain the effective resolution of disputes with federal implications. For instance, cases involving energy distribution, natural resource allocation, or inter-State commerce often feature corporate intermediaries.
Scholars and practitioners have therefore argued for a more nuanced approach — one that distinguishes between direct participation of private entities (which remains impermissible) and consideration of their actions through attribution to a government party (which remains permissible). Such an interpretive balance would allow Article 131 to continue serving its federal purpose without undermining constitutional boundaries.
Summary
| Aspect | Position under Article 131 |
|---|---|
| Who can be a party | Only the Union and one or more States; or two or more States. |
| Private entities or corporations | Cannot be impleaded as independent parties; their actions may only be attributed to the State. |
| Procedural mechanism | No express provision for joinder of third parties under Supreme Court Rules; CPC principles not applicable. |
| Leading case law | State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970), State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) |
| Practical implication | Ensures that Article 131 disputes remain purely intergovernmental, preserving the federal balance. |
In conclusion, the doctrine governing joinder and impleadment under Article 131 reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of its original jurisdiction. While the procedural and constitutional framework restricts the inclusion of non-State actors, it allows sufficient interpretive flexibility to address disputes arising in modern governance contexts — provided that the core dispute remains between constitutional entities.
A Practice Note for Litigators
Practical, shareable tips for counsel handling Original Jurisdiction matters under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Use this boxed section near the end of your article or as a sidebar.
Why this Practice Note Matters
Article 131 proceedings are institutional and often high-stakes: they resolve disputes between the Union and States (or between States). Litigators must combine constitutional strategy, evidentiary preparedness and tactical prudence to protect institutional interests while persuading the Court. The short, pragmatic tips below are focused on what to do and what to avoid.
1. Strategic Use of Article 131: When and Why
Article 131 should be used when the dispute directly concerns legal relations between the Union and a State, or between States, and where ordinary remedies (writs, appeals, tribunals) cannot provide adequate relief.
- Maintainability check: Ensure the parties are the Union and/or States; presence of private parties usually militates against maintainability.
- Nature of dispute: Constitutional questions or conflicts over legislative/executive competence are paradigmatic Article 131 matters.
- Practical example: A State’s challenge to the Union’s unilateral taxation or allocation of natural resources.
2. Interim Relief Strategy: Managing Urgency and Equilibrium
The Supreme Court grants interim relief cautiously in Article 131 disputes because such orders may have far-reaching policy or administrative effects. Favour evidence-based, narrowly tailored reliefs that preserve the status quo.
Do’s
- Present a clear prima facie case demonstrating constitutional or statutory breach.
- Prove irreparable injury — financial, administrative or institutional — if interim relief is denied.
- Show that the balance of convenience and public interest favour temporary protection pending final adjudication.
Don’ts
- Do not rely on speculation, political rhetoric or general administrative inconvenience alone.
- Avoid broad, open-ended interim orders; seek relief that is limited in time and scope.
3. Tactical Decision: Article 131 vs Article 143 (Advisory Jurisdiction)
Decide early whether the matter is adversarial (Article 131) or advisory (Article 143). A Presidential reference under Article 143 is often preferable when there is no concrete dispute but a genuine legal uncertainty of constitutional importance.
- Prefer Article 143 when: The issue is one of legal interpretation without a concrete inter-governmental contest; the Government seeks constitutional guidance before acting.
- Prefer Article 131 when: There is a direct clash of legal rights between governments requiring a binding adjudication.
- Practical litigation tip: Where possible, encourage administrative dialogue (including seeking a reference) before invoking adversarial jurisdiction — it can preserve cooperative federalism.
4. Documentary Evidence: Preparation and Presentation
Original suits under Article 131 require primary evidence. Anticipate the Court’s demand for certified documents, affidavits from competent officials and verifiable public records. Start collecting and certifying documents early.
| Type of Document | Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Government Orders / Notifications | Show the executive action under challenge | State circulars, Union notifications, Gazette publications |
| Legislative Records | Evidence of constitutional or statutory competence | Bill papers, committee reports, legislative debates |
| Financial and Administrative Data | Quantify harm / demonstrate jurisdictional impact | Tax receipts, budget notes, expenditure summaries |
| Inter-governmental Correspondence | Prove communications and requests between governments | Letters, minutes, email records (certified) |
| Affidavits of Officials | Sworn evidence about fact, procedure and impact | Affidavits by secretaries, chief secretaries, finance officers |
Counsel’s note: Wherever classified or cabinet materials are relevant, assess whether they can be placed on record after appropriate permissions; avoid reliance on hearsay about internal deliberations.
5. Drafting and Presentation: Tone, Jurisdiction and Remedies
Pleadings should be precise, constitutional in tone and free from gratuitous political invective. Structure the cause of action and remedies clearly.
- Begin with a brief and focused statement of facts establishing jurisdiction under Article 131.
- Formulate clear questions of law and identify the constitutional provision(s) in issue.
- Set out a structured array of reliefs — declaratory, interim, and consequential — and specify the operative scope of each.
6. Quick Reference / Practitioner’s Checklist
| Aspect | Practitioner’s Tip |
|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Check | Confirm parties are Union/States; avoid private-entity centric suits under Article 131. |
| Interim Relief | Use narrow, data-backed interim orders that protect status quo and minimize national disruption. |
| Alternative Remedies | Evaluate writs (Art. 32/226), tribunal routes and Article 143 before filing. |
| Evidence Strategy | Collect certified primary documents; affidavits from competent officials strengthen credibility. |
| Drafting | Keep tone constitutional and focused on legal rights; avoid political accusations. |
| Advisory Route | Consider seeking a Presidential reference under Article 143 when cooperative resolution is possible. |
Conclusion
Article 131 requires a blend of legal precision, evidentiary discipline and institutional sensitivity. A litigant that approaches such disputes with measured tactics and thorough preparation improves the chances of obtaining effective and sustainable relief while preserving the institutional balance that the Constitution envisions.
Practice Note — At a Glance
- Keep it narrow: Ask for the least disruptive relief to preserve institutional functioning.
- Document early: Primary documents and certified records are indispensable.
- Consider Article 143: Advisory references can pre-empt adversarial litigation.
- Respect tone: Frame the dispute as legal, not political.
- Plan remedies: Request declaratory relief plus specific, time-limited remedies where necessary.
Practical Annex: Sample Petition Structure and Drafting Checklist
Why This Annex Matters
In legal practice, especially before the Supreme Court and High Courts, precision in drafting pleadings can determine the success or failure of a case. A well-structured petition not only ensures clarity and completeness but also facilitates judicial efficiency. This annex serves as a practical reference guide for litigators, junior advocates, and law students engaged in preparing petitions under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or constitutional writ petitions before the High Courts. It provides a model structure, document checklist, and verification templates that help ensure compliance with procedural rules and best drafting practices.
Where to Place
This section is best included as an Appendix or Annexure at the end of the article or research paper. It serves as a ready reference that readers can consult independently when drafting or reviewing petitions.
Comprehensive Content
The annex may include the following parts for clarity and practical application:
A. Model Table of Contents for a Petition / Plaint
A properly indexed petition improves accessibility and judicial readability. Below is a suggested layout:
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cover Page (Title of the Case, Court, Cause Title, Petition Type, etc.) | |
| 2 | Synopsis and List of Dates | |
| 3 | Memo of Parties | |
| 4 | Main Petition / Plaint | |
| 5 | Grounds (Constitutional, Statutory, or Factual) | |
| 6 | Prayer Clause | |
| 7 | Interim Relief Application (if any) | |
| 8 | Affidavit / Verification | |
| 9 | Annexures / Documents Relied Upon | |
| 10 | Index of Authorities (Cases, Statutes, Articles) | |
| 11 | Vakalatnama (Duly Signed and Attested) |
B. Suggested Structure of a Petition / Plaint
Each petition should follow a logical structure that aligns with procedural and constitutional requirements.
1. Title and Jurisdiction
- Begin with the name of the court and article invoked (e.g., “In the Supreme Court of India under Article 131 of the Constitution”).
- Clearly mention the jurisdictional basis (original, writ, or appellate).
2. Cause Title
- Include full names, designations, and addresses of the petitioner(s) and respondent(s).
- If representing a State or Union Territory, include the name of the authority and official capacity.
3. Synopsis and List of Dates
Present a chronological summary of key events leading to the dispute. Helps the Bench grasp the factual timeline at a glance.
4. Statement of Facts
Concise narration of material facts establishing the cause of action, avoiding argumentative language.
5. Grounds
- Divide into constitutional grounds, statutory grounds, and factual grounds.
- Each ground should be clearly numbered and self-contained.
6. Reliefs Sought
- Specify both main reliefs (e.g., declaration, injunction, direction) and interim reliefs (e.g., stay, ad-interim orders).
- Ensure relief clauses correspond directly to the stated grounds.
7. Interim Application (if applicable)
Clearly state urgency and justification for interim relief, supported by affidavit and documents.
8. Prayer Clause
Draft in clear and concise language, for example:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to…”
9. Verification / Affidavit
Include standard verification form (see template below).
10. Annexures
- Attach all relevant documents in sequential order with proper indexing.
- Each annexure should be marked as Annexure P-1, P-2, etc., and referenced within the main petition.
C. Model Verification Form Template
Verification
I, _______________________, the petitioner above-named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs ___ to ___ of the accompanying petition are true and correct to my knowledge, belief, and information, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at __________ on this ___ day of __________, 20__.
Signature: ______________________
Name: __________________________
Designation/Capacity: __________________________
Address: __________________________
D. Checklist for Preliminary and Procedural Compliance
Before filing, advocates should ensure the following items are duly addressed to prevent objections from the Registry or procedural delays.
| Checklist Item | Yes/No | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Proper jurisdiction invoked (Article 131 / Article 32 / Article 226 etc.) | ||
| Cause title includes correct and complete details of all parties | ||
| Vakalatnama properly executed and accepted | ||
| Court fee and requisite stamps affixed as per rules | ||
| Affidavit/Verification duly signed and attested | ||
| Certified or legible copies of annexures attached | ||
| Pagination and indexing properly done | ||
| Interim relief section (if any) supported by affidavit | ||
| Reliefs clearly stated and not vague | ||
| Compliance with Supreme Court Rules, 2013 or relevant High Court Rules |
E. Suggested Best Practices for Drafting
- Clarity over ornamentation: Avoid verbose or rhetorical language.
- Maintain logical flow: Facts → Grounds → Relief.
- Avoid repetition: Each ground should add unique legal substance.
- Use citations judiciously: Support only essential legal propositions.
- Proofread for accuracy: Names, dates, article numbers, and annexure references must be error-free.
- Digitally paginate before e-filing (in cases of electronic submission).
Conclusion
This annex provides a functional drafting framework for practitioners engaging with constitutional or inter-governmental disputes. By following this structure and checklist, litigators can ensure that their pleadings are technically compliant, logically coherent, and procedurally sound, thereby strengthening their advocacy before the constitutional courts.
References
- The Constitution of India, Article 131.
- M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law.
- H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India.
- Supreme Court decisions cited above.
- Law Commission of India Reports on Centre-State Relations.
- Supreme Court of India: Structure, Jurisdiction, and Filing Procedures
