Article 131 of the Constitution

Suppose two State governments quarrel over something big. Or suppose a State says the Union has taken away its rights. Who decides? No High Court can. No lower court can. These fights go straight to the Supreme Court. The rule is in Article 131. And it has a surprising limit: only governments can be in the case. Why is that?

1What Does Article 131 Say?

• The Supreme Court is mostly a court of appeal. Cases normally reach it after a lower court has decided. Article 131 is different. It gives the Court original jurisdiction, which means the case starts there.
• It is also exclusive. No other court can hear these disputes.
• Three kinds of dispute are covered. First, between the Government of India and one or more States. Second, between the Government of India and one or more States on one side, and other States on the other. Third, between two or more States.
• There is a condition. The dispute must involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. A mere political quarrel is not enough.
• There is also an exception. Article 131 does not cover a dispute arising out of certain treaties, agreements and similar documents made before the Constitution began, if they still continue.
• Think of the Court as a referee in the federal system. It settles fights between the units of the Union, which are the Centre and the States.

2Who Can and Cannot Sue Under Article 131?

• Look at the list of parties. Every pair in Article 131 is made of governments. No citizen is named. No company is named. No political party is named.
• Why this narrow rule? The Article exists to settle federal quarrels. It is not a general door for every kind of legal wrong.
• A person who feels a Fundamental Right is hurt has a different door. That is Article 32. A company with a dispute goes to ordinary courts.
• The word exclusive has a twist. Even the High Courts cannot hear an Article 131 dispute, even though they are strong courts.

3What Happened in the Early Article 131 Cases?

• Start with 1963. Parliament had passed a law to acquire coal-bearing areas, and some of that land belonged to West Bengal. The State went to the Supreme Court.
• West Bengal argued that a State is like a sovereign. It said Parliament should not be able to take its land.
• The Court did not accept that. It held that States in India are not sovereign in that sense, and Parliament could make the law. The suit was dismissed.
• Next came Bihar, in 1969 and 1970. Bihar wanted to sue the Union, and the dispute also involved Hindustan Steel Ltd., a company owned by the Government.
• The Court dropped the company from the case. Under Article 131, only the Union and States can be parties. This is why the company could not be joined.
• Then came 1977. The Centre had set up a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conduct of Karnataka’s Chief Minister. Karnataka sued.
• The Court explained the words “legal right” in a wide way, and it heard the case. But in the end it dismissed Karnataka’s suit.
• Put the three together. The first case is about who the States are. The second is about who can be a party. The third is about what counts as a legal right.

4What Happened in the 2024 Kerala and Bengal Suits?

• Article 131 sounds old, but it is very much alive. In December 2023, Kerala went to the Supreme Court. It said the Union had put a ceiling on how much the State could borrow, which hurt its finances.
• Kerala said this crossed into the State’s own field. The Union disagreed. It said its limits were part of managing the national economy.
• In April 2024, the Court sent the big questions to a five-judge Constitution Bench. These questions were about how far the Union can control State borrowing.
• Now a second story. West Bengal also filed a suit under Article 131. It said the CBI had been taking up cases in the State without the State’s consent, which the law requires.
• The Union argued the suit should not go ahead. On 10 July 2024, a two-judge bench said the suit was maintainable. That means it could be heard under Article 131.
• Note what the Court did not do. It did not decide who was right on the CBI question. It only said the case could be heard.

5What Are the Limits on Article 131?

• Legal right needed. The dispute must rest on a legal right. A purely political quarrel is not enough.
• Article 262. Parliament can make a law that bars the Supreme Court from hearing inter-State river water disputes. Such disputes then go to tribunals.
• Pre-Constitution treaties. The proviso to Article 131 keeps out disputes tied to certain old treaties and similar agreements. Article 363 also limits the courts here.
• So the rule is simple. Article 131 is general, and Article 262 is the water-dispute carve-out.

6What Should You Remember for Exams?

Must Know

• Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction.
• It covers Union and State disputes, and State and State disputes.
• The dispute must involve a legal right.

Good to Know

• Only the Union and States can be parties.
• A private company cannot be joined, even if the Government owns it.
• Article 262 lets Parliament bar the Court from water disputes.

Great to Know

• Article 131 does not cover every dispute that involves a government (Trap).
• Citizens use Article 32, not 131 (Trap).
• In 2024, Kerala’s borrowing case went to a five-judge bench (Trap).

7How Has This Been Asked in Exams?