In exercise of powers under article145 of the constitution, the supreme court framed the supreme court rules,1966, part III order 22 to 34 which trick prescribes the procedure to befollowed in connection with the filing, hearing and disposal of proceedingsunder article 13. Execution of decree and order has been provided for theprovided for by the supreme court (decrees and orders) Enforcement order, 1954issued by the president under article 142 (1) of the constitution.PARTIESThen in constitution set up afederal polity where intergovernmental disputes of an arise.
It thereforebecomes necessary to set up a forum for resolving such dissipates article 131does so why authorising the supreme court to settle intergovernmental disputes.H Bhagwati J has observed in state of Karnataka versus Union of India “thatgirl is a necessary concomitant of a federal or a Quasi federal form ofGovernment and it is attracted only when the parties to the dispute are theGovernment of India or one or more States arranged on either side”.The state of Mysore contested indemand, under the Central Excise Act, for payment of excise duty onagricultural implements manufactured in the factory belonging to the state. Thestate took the matter to the highest appellate Tribunal under the law, viz.,The Government of India, which rejected the same. The state Den filed a writpetition in the High Court against the central government’s decision. The highcourt rejected the argument that being a dispute between estate and the centre,the matter live within the Exclusive original jurisdiction of the supremecourt. It took the view that the central government had disposed of the matteras a trimmer and so it was not a party to the dispute, and that for article 131to apply, a dispute must directly arise between the state and the centralgovernment as the repository of the excuse executive power of the union.
The decision of the High court wasis affirmed by the Supreme Court on the ground that Government of India Act ADVonly has a criminal and that there was no dispute between the centre and thestate. The state of Bihar filed a suit inthe supreme court under article 131 against the Union of India as the owner ofRailways, and the Hindustan Steel Ltd., A government company, claiming damagesfor short supply of iron and steel ordered by the state in connection with thegandak project. The court held that the suit did not lie under article 131,because it’s phraseology excludes the idea of a private citizen, a form or acorporation figuring as a disputant either alone along with a government. “Themost important feature of article 131 is that it makes no mention of any partyother than the Government of India or any one or more of the states who can bearrayed as a disputant.
” No private party, with a citizen, or a form of acorporation, can be included as a party in a suit under article 131 along withstate either jointly or in the alternative.The quote for the hell that theenlarge definition of the state As given under article 12 could not be appliedunder article 131, and Hindustan Steel could not be regarded as a “State” forthat purpose.This makes quite clear that onlyintergovernmental dispute can be brought before supreme court under article 131and a state cannot sue under article 131 a government company belonging toeither Central or State government or both this simply means that only part of Federation will be made party underarticle 131 and the word state will not give be given wider embed as given inArticle 12.Rightly rejected the argument basedon Article 12. As it would have meant that any dispute between a government andan administrative agency, would be brought before the supreme court, whichwould have placed an impossible word in on it. And this was also the intentionof the constitution framer for inserting article 131 in the constitution ofIndia and not placing it in part 3 of the constitution.
DISPUTESUnder article 131, the supreme courtcan take cognizance of a dispute involving “any question (whether of law or fact)on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.” this means thatAssociation of a legal right of the Government of India or a state and denialby the others. “It is not necessary that the right must be a constitutionalright. All that is necessary is that it must be a legal right.”The most important of all is thatthe dispute should be in respect of a legal rights and not disputes of apolitical character. “The purpose of article 131 is to afford a forum for theresolution of disputes which depend for the decision on the existence or extentof a legal right. It is only when a legal comma not Aamir political, issuearises touching up on the existence or extent of a legal right that article 131is attracted.”The essential conditions for attractingarticle 131 is that the dispute must involved question weather of lower fat, onwhich the existence of extent of a legal right depends.
It is this conditionwhich provides the true guide for determining whether a particular disputeFalls within the purview of article 131.Aaj Bhagwati Jai has observed in thestate of Karnataka versus Union of India” The only requirement necessary forattracting the applicability of article 131 is that the dispute must be oneinvolving any question “on which the resistance or extent of a legal right”depends, irrespective whether the legal right is claimed by one party or theother and it is not necessary that some legal right of the plaintiff should beinfluenced before a suit can be brought under that Article.”Further, Bhagwati Jai has observedin a state of Karnataka versus Union of India defining the scope of article 131″What has therefore, to be seen inorder to determine the applicability of article 131 is weather there is anyrelation what has therefore, to be seen in order to determine the applicabilityof article 131 is whether there is any relational legal matter involving aright, Liberty, power or immunity who are the parties to the dispute full stopif there is, the street would be maintainable but not otherwise.”The Supreme Court has the power togive whatever leaves are necessary for the enforcement of a legal right claimedin the suit if such legal right is established.
Article 142 of the Constitution canalso be in work for that purpose.Very few cases have been filed underarticle 131 and those cases which have been filed under article 131 contain theproblems of constitutional law pertaining to federalism.State of West Bengal versus Union of IndiaIn a state of West Bengal versusUnion of India, the state of West Bengal filed a Suit against the centreseeking a declaration that a central level on constitutional, but the court ofall the validity of the impugned law.
“State of Rajasthan vs Union of IndiaIn state of Rajasthan vs Union ofIndia, the question with the term ‘state’ in article 131 (a) includes withinits scope “state government”. There was general elections in the country forLok Sabha in 1977 in which the Congress party was badly defeated. At this time,there were Congress Ministries in several States.
The home minister, Governmentof India, through a communication advise the chief ministers of these States toadvise their Governor to resolve the state assembly is under article 174 (2)(b) of the constitution and seek a fresh amended from the people.These state governments wild fruitsin the Supreme Court against the central government under article 131 seekinginjunction against dissolution of the state legislative assemblies underarticle 356 and holding fresh elections in the states because the ruling partyhad been defeated in the elections for the Lok Sabha in these States.The central government raisedseveral preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit under article131 of the constitution. But the supreme court rejecting all these contentionsheld that the matter fill with an article 131.
The court refused to give arestrictive meaning to article 131. It ruled that article 131 includes adispute between Central and state governments involving a legal right. In thewords of Chandrachud J.. ” the true construction of article 131(a),true insubstance and True pragmatically, is that a dispute must arise between theUnion and a State. It was for the held by supreme courtthat the dispute between the union of india and estate cannot but beer disputewhich arises out of the difference between the government in office at thecenter and the government in office in state. It is not necessary forattracting article 131 that the plaintiff must assert a legal right in itselfArticle 131 contains no such restriction. It is sufficient for attractingArticle 131 that the plaintiff questions leola constitutional rai desertadvisor defendant, be it the government of india or any other state.
Such achallenge brings the suite didn’t terms of article 13 14 comma the question forthat decision on the court is not very this or that particular legislativeassembly isn’t it to continue in office but we’re the government of india commawhich is words the constitutional right to dissolve the assembly on the groundsalleged, possesses any such right.In so far as the dispute related tothe distance of the center power under article 356 vis-a-vis the state legislature, it raise thequestion of legal right. The court also clarify that under article 131, itwould have power to be whatever relief and necessary for enforcement of thelegal right claim in the suitcase hd girl right is established. State of karnataka vs union of indiaEk question of interpretation andapplicable etv of article 131 also rose instead of karnataka village union ofindia. The government of india account today commission of enquiry under thecommission of enquiry Act, to enquire into certainly jason’s of corruption andmisuse of power why the chief minister and a few other ministers.
The state ofkarnataka border shooter game the center under article 13 14 issue ofdeclaration that the notification of pointing the commissioner illegal andultra vires.The main condition of the state overthere the commission of enquiry Act does not authorized central government toconstituted commission of enquiry in regard to metals holly exclusively withinthe state’s legislative and executivepower. The crucial question thus raised was whether the central government goodpoint a commission twinkle into the conduct of the chief minister and otherministers of state in the discharge of the governmental functions.Needless, tu say, the question hadan intimate bearing on center states relationship, and thus, on indianfederalism.
The union of india raised apreliminary objection against the maintainability of the suit. By majority of4:3, the supreme court road that the suite under article 131 by the state wascompetent and maintainable. The majority judges were not prepared to take torestrictive a view of article 13. Devar not prepared to distinguish between thestate and its government. The majority view was that there is a son integralrelationship between the state and its government and what effect thegovernment or the ministers in their capacity as ministers raises a matter inwhich the state would be concerned. In the words of Chandrachud, J:”the object of article 131 is toprovide a high powered machinery for ensuring the at the central government andthe state governments aberdeen the respective space of there authority and donot trust pastor ponies others constitutional functions or powers.”Bhagwati J., Explained that thestate government is the agent through which the state exercises its executivepowers.
Therefore, any action which affect the state government order ministersas ministers, would raise a matter in which the state would we concerned. Bhagwati J., further reuled that”winning a ride or capacity for like of it is at rebooted to any institutionoperation acting on behalf of the state, it raises a matter in which the stateis involved or concerned.”It was also clarified that underarticle 131, it is not necessary that the plaintiff stood have some legal rightof its own to enforce, before it can file a suit.
What is necessary is that thedispute must be one involving any question “on which the existence for extentof a legal right” depends. The plaintiff can bring the suite so long as it hasinterest in reading the dispute because it is affected by it, even if no legalright of it is increased provided, of course, the dispute is releatable toexistence or extent of a legal right.Therefore, a challenge by the stategovernment to the authority of the central government to point a commission ofinquiry to inquire into the locations against the state ministers age regardsthe discharge of their functions in the state clearly involved a question onwhich the existence of extent of the legal right of the central government topoint such a commission depended and that was enough to sustain the proceedingsroute by the state under article 131.Union of india vs state of rajasthanA similar question arose again whenthe state of rajasthan filed suit in the ordinary civil court claiming damagesfor the loos suffered by the state on account of damage caused to the goodtransported through the railways. The union of india voice completed as a party.It was just a commercial contact under which and officer of the state ofrajasthan was entitled to claim delivery of goods consigned as any ordinaryconsignee. The court road that the cleaners won against the railwayadministration and was cognizable by ordinary courts.
The union of india wasimpleaded as a party only because it was the owner of the railways. It was nota matter to be decided exclusively by the supreme court under article 131.The court further pointed out thatarticle 131 is attracted only when a dispute arises between or amongst thestates and the union in the context of the constitutional relationship thatexist between them and the powers, rights, duties, immunities, liabilities,disabilities, e.t.c flowing therefrom. “It could never have been the intentionof the famous of the constitution that any ordinary dispute of this naturewould have to be decided exclusively by the supreme court.” State of karnataka vs state of andhra pradeshA suit filed by the state ofkarnataka against the state of andhra pradesh under article 131 raging adispute relating to known implementation of the binding decisions rendered bythe krishna water dispute criminal constituted under Sec 4 of the Inter StateWater Dispute Act, 1956, has been held to be maintainable.
Other features of article 131In the context of article 131, the phrase ” cause of action”usingorder 23 rule 6 (a) ok the supreme court rules 1966, mills that the disputebetween parties referred to in classes (a) to (c) of Art. 131 must in wallaquestion on which the existence or extent of legal right depends, and uplandwhich does not disclose sach a “cause of action” or is ex facie barredd by law, is liable to be rejected under order 23Rule 6(b) of those Rules.The supreme court observed in stateof bahar vs union of india that the distinguishing feature of article 13 isthat the court is not required to educate upon the dispute sinha jacqueline thesame way as ordinary courts of law normally called upon to do for upholding theright of the parties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The court isonly concern to give its decision on question of law of fact on which theexistence or extent of a legal right claim depends. What’s the code comes toits conclusion on the cases presented by the disputants and eve’s its educationon the facts or the points of law raised, the function of the court underarticle 131 is over.
Article 131 does not prescribed at asuit must be filed in the supreme court for complete education of the disputeenvisaged therein, aur the passing of a degree capable of execution in theordinary was decrease of other courts are. It is open to and aggrieved party tupresent a petition to the supreme court containing a full statement of therelevant facts and bring for the declaration of its rights as against otherdisputants. Once that is done, the function of the supreme court under article131 is at an end.This statement seemed to suggestthat the only remedy which the supreme court could grand under article 131 was adeclaration. This view where’s held to be erroneous in state of rajasthan vsunion of india. It has know when hell that the supreme court has power to grantwhatever release maybe necessary for enforcement of the legal right claimed inthe suit if such legal right is established. Does court has rule din state ofkarnataka vs state of andhra pradesh that under article 131, the court may passany order or directions as may be foundnecessary to meet the end of justice.
State of haryana vs state of punjabda supreme court issued mandatory induction directing the state of punjab tocomplete the construction of canal and make it functional within one year. Ifit did not do so, the union of india voice to get it done through its ownagency.Exclusion of article 131 jurisdictionArticle 131 opens with the words”subject to the provisions of this constitution.
” Thus the jurisdiction underarticle 131 may be excluded by other provisions of the constitution.The constitution excludes theExclusive original jurisdiction of the supreme court under article 131 in thefollowing matters:(1) According to the proviso to article131 as mentioned above the courts jurisdiction does not extend to a “disputesarising out of any Treaty agreement Covenant engagement Sanal or other similarinstrument which having been entered into are executed before the commencementof the constitution, continuous in Operation after such commencement or whichprovides that the state jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.”Reference may also be made in thisconnection to article 363 which excludes the above mentioned disputes from thejurisdiction original or appellate of the supreme court and all other courts.
The president may, however, referany dispute excluded from the cruise jurisdiction under article 131 to thesupreme court for its advisory opinion under article 143.(2) under article 262(2), parliamentmay by law exclude supreme court’s jurisdiction in education of any disputecomplaint with respect to use comma distribution control of the waters in anyinterest state river or river valley.Parliament has enacted theInter-state water dispute act 1956. Section 11 of the provides that neither thesupreme court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of anywater dispute which could be referred to a tribune under the Act.A tribunal was appointed under theapt to decide upon the appointment of krishna river water. The tribunal evildead 2 schemes. The state of andhra pradesh filed a suit under article 131against the states of karnataka and maharashtra and the union of india forproper implementation of the schemes evolved by the tribunal.
It was objectivethat as the suit related to water dispute it was bad under article 262(2) readwith the water dispute Act. The supreme court over rules objection saying thatthe suite did not really too the settlement of a water dispute but enforcementof the decision of the tribunal. The suite was held maintainable under article131.Dispute relating to water1. Article 262 is a source oflegislative power. It can first exclusive power on the parliament to enact alaw providing for the adjudication of disputes.
The dispute saw complaints merilate to the use distribution or control of the waters of, or in, anyInter-state river or river valley. ‘Use’, ‘distribution’ and ‘control’mayinclude regulation and development of the said waters.Though the water of an interstateriver paas through the territories of the reparian states, search water cannotbe regarded as located in any one state. They are in a state of slow and nostate can claim exclusive ownership of such waters.Hence, no state can lageslate for the you of sach water since its legislative power does not extendbeyond its territories.
In exercise of the power concert bythis clause, parliament has instead the interstate water dispute Act,1956.Section 4 (1) of this Act provide that when, concept of a request from anystate government, the central government is of opinion that the water disputecannot be settled by negotiations, the central government shall constitute awater dispute tribunal for the education of that dispute. The criminalconstituted under section 4 of the interstate water dispute Act,1956investigate had the matters referred to it regarding distribution of water inriver schemes “A” and “B”. Scheme “A”why notified and implemented but scheme”B” was postponed at the three states did not agree as to the constitution ofan authority namely, krishna valley authority which was to be the backbone ofthe scheme. However the state of karnataka brought a suit for itsimplementation but the supreme court decline to issue any direction in thisrespect is it concluded the scheme be did not form part of the decision of thetribunal.The supreme court has healed thatwas the central government find that the dispute referred to in the requestreceived from the estate government cannot be settled by negotiations, itbecomes mandatory for the central government to constitutes a tribunal and torefer the dispute to it for adjudication. Tip the central government face tomake such reference, the court may, on an application and article 32 by anaggrieved party, ishu mendes to the central government to carry out itsstatutory obligation.The language of article 262 is ofwhite amplitude and has to be distinguish from entry 56 of List I and entry 17of List II.
The state of karnataka route suitunder article 131 of the constitution for the implementation of scheme “B”. Itwas constructed that it being better dispute referred to the trinidadjurisdiction of the supreme court was border new of the provisions of article262 (2) r.w Section 11 of the Act. The supreme court of reserve that from thenature of resistance made in the paint and the relief sought for, it where’sdifficult to hold that it constituted a water dispute under section 2(c) of theinter-state water dispute Act, 1956 so as to bar the Apex Court’s jurisdiction.
The water level of Mullaperiyar danreservoir was reduced from its full level do to the security/safetyconsideration rating to the dam. There after dispute saroj between the statesconcerned as to the straightening needs to be taken and restoration of waterlevel of the dam reservoir to its original level. The supreme court held atsuch a dispute is not a water dispute within the meaning of sec 2(c) of theInter-state water dispute Act,1956. Health the jurisdiction of the supremecourt in respect of the state dispute was not barred.Notwithstanding that, the supremecourt has held that:-(A) It is exclusive function and duty ofa court to interpret a statute and to determine the limits of the jurisdictionof any criminal statutory authority (which in the present case is the CauveryW.D Tribunal).
This jurisdiction of the court is not barred by Sec 11 of theAct.(B) What is what is the question weatherany party before the criminal is entitled to any relief on the merits.In this case the tribunal has heldthat it had no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief under the Act. Thesupreme court, an appeal by special leave, hey that the jurisdiction had beenconferred by agreement between the parties before the criminal and the supremecourt directed the tribunal to decide on the merits wheather the appellant wasentitled to any entry release on the facts of the case and tribunal passedintrim orders in pursuance tu the directions of the supreme court for theenforcement of which a suit was instituted. Considering the submission of theparties the court concluded that the suit involved a substantial question oflaw as to the interpretation of the constitution and referred the matter to beheard and decided by a constitution bench.