How to File an Original Suit under Article 131: Adjudicating Federal Disputes Between Union & States

Article 131 is concerned with disputes within the federation. In State of Bihar v. Union of India, Bihar sued the Union and a public sector steel company over short deliveries of steel. The Court held that the suit did not lie under Article 131, because the Article covers disputes between governments and does not extend to a dispute in which a private party or a corporation is joined, even alongside the Union. Such claims must be pursued in the ordinary courts.

The same principle means that citizens and companies cannot use Article 131, and that a State cannot use it to sue a corporation owned by another government. Conversely, where the dispute is between governments, Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction, and no other court can decide it.

The requirement of a legal right has been read broadly. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India, the Court held maintainable a suit by Karnataka challenging the Union's appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into allegations against its Chief Minister and Ministers, although it upheld the Union's notification on the merits. The State's interest in its constitutional position and in the functioning of its government was enough to bring the dispute within Article 131.

There must nonetheless be a legal right in issue, not merely a political disagreement. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, suits by several States challenging the Union's proposal to dissolve their Legislative Assemblies after the 1977 general election were dismissed. More recently, in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Court rejected the Union's preliminary objections and held maintainable West Bengal's suit complaining that the Central Bureau of Investigation continued to register cases in the State after the State had withdrawn its general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The suit was directed to proceed on the merits.

Whether a State can challenge the constitutional validity of a central law in a suit under Article 131 is an open question. A two-judge Bench had held that it cannot, reasoning that such challenges belong in writ proceedings. In State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar, another two-judge Bench disagreed and referred the question to a larger Bench. Until it is settled, a government contemplating such a challenge needs to consider both the suit and other routes, such as intervening in or supporting writ petitions filed by affected persons.

The proviso to Article 131 excludes disputes arising out of treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, sanads or similar instruments executed before the Constitution came into force that continue in operation, or that themselves exclude the jurisdiction. Article 363 separately bars courts from entertaining disputes arising out of certain pre-Constitution treaties and agreements with the Rulers of Indian States.

Article 262 allows Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over disputes relating to inter-State rivers, and Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does so. Water disputes are referred to tribunals constituted under that Act. A plaint must be drafted so as to show that the dispute falls outside these exclusions.

Many federal questions also affect private persons, who may challenge the same law or action by writ petitions under Article 32 or in the High Courts. Article 139A allows the Supreme Court to withdraw to itself cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law pending before it and one or more High Courts, so that the question is decided once. A government that cannot sue under Article 131, because a private party or a corporation is a necessary party, may still take part in such proceedings as a respondent or an intervener.

Before filing, governments also consider whether the dispute can be resolved without litigation, through negotiation or through bodies such as the Inter-State Council that the President may establish under Article 263. A suit is a long and formal process, and its pleadings commit the government to positions that may matter in other disputes, so the decision to sue is usually taken at a senior level.

An original suit is a trial, not an appeal or a writ. The Court decides disputed facts on evidence and grants a decree that binds the parties, and Article 144 requires all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Because the parties are governments, much of the evidence consists of official records, and the Court often encourages the parties to agree on documents and narrow the issues.

Suits under Article 131 are relatively rare and often long-running. Their value lies in the authoritative settlement of questions about the distribution of powers and resources within the federation, which may affect many other disputes. The essay on constitutional matters places Article 131 in the wider context of the Court's constitutional jurisdiction.