Get a detailed understanding of the practical aspects along with all essential concepts about the Original Suits filed under Article 131 before the Supreme Court. Learn how to draft an Original Suit efficiently. This article will be helpful for any advocate thinking of expanding their practice in the Supreme Court of India or aspiring to write the Supreme Court’s Advocate on Record Examination.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Do you know what would happen when a state and the central government get into a dispute?
In 2019, the State of Kerala did precisely the same thing, and it took no time to catch the attention of the entire nation.
Do you want to know what really happened?
It all began with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, a law that discriminated against particular religious communities.
Many people protested on the streets against this amendment as they were angry with this law and showed a lot of resentment against it.
All the news channels showed heated debates between eminent personalities who only added fire to this turmoil.
However, this issue could not be resolved in this manner, and it has to be resolved logically.
There was only one way to do it, and that was to approach the Court, which has been a savior in such situations in the past as well.
As a result, a large group of people filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court, challenging this amendment by contending that their fundamental rights had been violated.
Most of them took the normal route of approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 to challenge this law.
But the State of Kerala took a bold step and an unusual route that certainly raised a lot of eyebrows.
Can you guess what step the State of Kerala took?
It filed a suit invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India to challenge this piece of legislation.
Reading this, you probably would be thinking about what exactly Article 131 of the Constitution of India is. Can any state government really challenge a central law in such a manner? And most importantly, how do you draft an original suit under Article 131?
I know you are intrigued to know more, even I was when I first learned about Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
Let’s take it concept by concept and at the end of reading this article, you will know everything about Article 131 and you will also learn how to draft an original suit under Article 131 before the Supreme Court.
Let’s first get our basics right.
What exactly is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
In simple language, if there is a dispute between parties and the dispute is directly filed in the Supreme Court without approaching or involving any lower courts, then the authority to hear the dispute directly is called the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction to hear transfer petitions, writ petitions and the like under various provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India.
There are certain disputes which can be filed only in the Supreme Court to the exclusion of other courts, such as Original Suits between governments.
Before we dive into the nitty gritty of drafting, let me clarify some common confusion about the difference between original suits under Article 131 and general civil suits.
What is the difference between General Civil Suits and Original Jurisdiction Suits?
Let’s have a look at the table below to understand the difference
| Aspect | Original Suits under Article 131 | General Civil Suits |
| Filed under | Article 131 of the Constitution | Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and ancillary acts |
| Procedure | Supreme Court Rules, along with certain provisions regarding inspection, discovery, etc, borrowed from CPC | CPC |
| Issuance of Notice | Notice is issued to the Advocate General of the State concerned or the Attorney General or the AOR concerned | The notice is issued to the party concerned. |
| Rejection of plaint | An original suit can be rejected only when the plaint does not disclose the cause of action or appears to be barred by law | A civil suit can be rejected for various grounds under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC |
| Jurisdiction | Supreme Court (exclusive) | Civil Courts/High Courts |
| Party Restriction | Only States/Union | Private individuals, companies, etc. |
| Subject Matter | Legal/constitutional rights | Civil nature disputes |
This is how suits filed under original jurisdiction are different from your general civil suits.
Moving onto the legal framework.
What is the legal framework of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
By now, you know about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Let me explain what Article 131 of the Constitution of India is.
For that, let’s see the circumstances under which the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to the exclusion of other Courts, shall be invoked:
- Firstly, when the Government of India has a dispute with one or more States.
- Secondly, when the dispute is between the Government of India (along with one or more States) on one side and one or more other States on the other.
- Thirdly, when there is a dispute between two or more States.
Moreover, any such dispute that is referred to the Supreme Court must be with regard to a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right depends.
Confused about what does this mean?
Let me share below some of the instances that will help you understand what kind of disputes are referred to the Supreme Court under Article 131.
- If there is any dispute about the validity of a law of the Union or the State.
- A question as to the governmental powers vested in the Government of the State and its ministers vis-a-vis those of the Union Government and its ministers.
- Any claim or dispute between the Union and a State as to their competence under Schedule VII to legislate over a subject.
For you, it is sufficient to remember that the right in question is a legal right, although it may or may not have its origin in the Constitution. So this means that it is not necessary for the right in question to be a constitutional right.
But wait, Article 131 is not your pass to take any dispute directly to the Supreme Court.
Why?
Because when there is a remedy that is available to any issue under any other article of the Constitution, then you cannot invoke Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
This is easy to understand, right? There is a lot more to learn. Let’s read further to know more.
Who are the parties in a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
Do you know that in Article 131 or in any other proceedings that you file, it is not enough for you to know how to draft but it is very crucial for you to identify who the parties to your suit would be, as not impleading a necessary party or impleading an unnecessary party can have serious consequences.
Above, I have already explained the circumstances under which Article 131 can be invoked, so you somewhat have an idea of who your parties to the suit can be.
But let me clarify who the parties to the suit would be to avoid any confusion.
The below-mentioned would be the parties to the suit under Article 131:
- The Government of India and one or more States;
- The Government of India, along with one or more States on one side and one or more States on the other side;
- Two or more States.
This is not it; there’s one more thing.
Did you know that the definition of a State under Article 131 differs from that of a State under Article 12?
Like me, I know many are not aware of this, but as I said, with this article, you will equip yourself with everything you need to know.
This was an issue that came up before the constitution bench in State of Bihar v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 67.
Let’s see the difference: Under Article 12, all local or other authorities within the control of the Government of India come within the ambit of the State. This enlarged definition of “State” is not attracted to Article 131 since it only includes the actual State Governments and the Central Government.
Now that we know who the parties are let me test you all and ask a quick question: Can private citizens, companies, or government departments be made parties under Article 131?
The answer is no. Why?
The Supreme Court has clarified that the word ‘State’ under Article 131 does not extend to private citizens, companies, or even government departments, even if they file a complaint alongside a State Government.
Interesting, isn’t it? Let’s proceed
Who shall sign on behalf of the plaintiff?
Have you ever thought that when the government files a suit before the Supreme Court, who has the authority to sign on behalf of the government? Let’s find this out.
It is the Chief Secretary of the Government or the Secretary of the concerned Department or Ministry of the Government, as the case may be, who has the authority to sign on behalf of the government.
This brings us to the next question
Who is authorized to sign as an advocate for the plaintiff?
You must know that not every advocate gets an opportunity to represent in such matters.
Every pleading shall be signed by an Advocate-on-record on behalf of the Attorney General for India or by an Advocate-on-record on behalf of the Advocate General for the State, as the case may be.
If you are an Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court, then only you are authorized to represent as an advocate for the Plaintiff in suits filed under Article 131 after receiving specific instructions from the government.
Being an Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court also brings the added advantage of professional prestige and exposure to cases of national importance.
Moving on, let’s see what are the disputes that cannot be filed under Article 131.
What kind of disputes cannot be filed under Article 131 of the Constitution?
You might assume that any dispute between States or involving the Union falls under Article 131.
Not really.
The jurisdiction to file a suit under Article 131 does not extend to disputes arising from:
- Any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement or similar instrument entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution and continues to remain in operation after the commencement of the Constitution.
- Instruments that explicitly provide for the exclusion of jurisdiction under Article 131.
- Adjustment of certain expenses as between the Union and the State [Article 257(4) and 258(3)]
- Inter-State Water Disputes under Article 262, since the Parliament has excluded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes relating to the use, distribution or control of the water of any inter-state river.
- Issues under Article 280 (Matters related to Financial Commission)
- Issues under Article 293 (Borrowing by States)
- Pure Political disputes
- Commercial Contractual disputes between the states/parties
Here’s something crucial to remember: you can’t draft a plaint under Article 131 like any other civil suit. The Supreme Court has its own set of rules for the original suits that need to be followed while drafting the plaint. Let’s have a look at it.
How must one go about drafting a plaint under Article 131?
Before you start drafting, it is necessary that you review Part III A of the Supreme Court Rules (SC Rules), which actually govern the original suits.
You can identify the components relevant to a plaint under Article 131 from Order XXVI of the SC Rules.
This Order specifies that the plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Order XXIX of SC Rules so far as they are applicable. As per Order XXIX, every suit must and only contain the material facts on which the party is relying upon. You must ensure not to include the evidence by which the said facts are to be proved. Most importantly, even the tone of the draft must not be argumentative.
There are certain other format-related things that you must keep in mind.
First is that the plaint has to be divided into paragraphs and they have to be consecutively numbered, and second is that all the dates, sums and numbers in the plaint have to be mentioned in figures.
You must ensure that you follow these rules in letter and spirit.
How to draft a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution?
After learning about different aspects of the original suit, it is now time to put pen to paper and learn how to draft an original suit
Let us consider the scenario of the State of Kerala itself to learn how to draft a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution and understand its stance.
Brief Facts:
The State of Kerala has approached you to draft an Original Suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which is to be filed before the Supreme Court of India. The Original Suit is against the Citizen Amendment Act,2019, promulgated by the Union of India, defendant herein.
I am adding headings in the draft only for the sake of identification and for better clarity
We will begin with the synopsis.
1. Synopsis
Explanation: A synopsis is a brief summary of the case and it must include the parties who are involved, the nature of the dispute, key legal provisions that are being challenged, along with the main grounds of the challenge and the reliefs sought. You must also ensure that you highlight the important points that build the foundation of the case.
The Plaintiff is the State of Kerala, who has filed the present suit against the Defendant who is the Union of India, to challenge the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Amendment Act”)
The Defendant enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Principal Act”) to govern the granting and revoking of Indian citizenship. However, the Impugned Amendment Act 2019 brought significant changes in the Principal Act that amended the definitions and criteria to grant citizenship to certain religious communities.
In particular, section 2(b) of the Principal Act defined “illegal migrant” to exclude individuals who entered India without valid documents or overstayed after the expiry of their visa. This section exempts certain religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan (i.e., Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) after the amendment, who have entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Therefore, these individuals who have entered before December 31, 2014, are not classified as illegal migrants and are eligible for citizenship by registration or naturalization.
A new provision, Section 6B, has been introduced by the Impugned Amendment Act. Section 6B, enables the grant of citizenship merely by registration or naturalization to individuals belonging to the aforementioned religious communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. This provision has reduced the mandatory period of residence or service in India from 11 years to 5 years for the purpose of acquiring citizenship, which in turn has benefitted these religious minorities.
But the Impugned Amendment Act violates the secular principles which are enshrined in the Constitution of India, because it makes religion and country of origin the primary criteria for granting Indian citizenship. The Impugned Amendment Act also discriminates on the basis of religion that is arbitrary, unreasonable and lacks a rational nexus with the object of the law.
The Impugned Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, Article 21, and Article 25 of the Constitution
Therefore, the Plaintiff intends to declare the Impugned Amendment Act as unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Hence, the present suit is filed.
2. List of dates and events
Explanation: List of dates and events is a chronological sequence of the significant events that are relevant to the case. It is necessary for you to include the exact dates of the crucial events and developments, such as when the laws were enacted and amended. You also need to include the dates on which any relevant actions were taken by the parties.
| 30th December 1955 | The Citizenship Act 1955 (“Principal Act”) was enacted by the Defendant, the Union of India, that laid down the provisions for citizenship by birth, descent, registration, and naturalization in India. |
| 1st July 1987 | The Principal Act was amended in order to limit automatic citizenship only to those individuals with at least one Indian parent. |
| 3rd December 2004 | The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 came into force that introduced the concept of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) and also brought further restrictions on acquiring citizenship by birth. |
| 12th December 2019 | The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (“Impugned Amendment Act”) received the Presidential assent that amended various provisions of the Principal Act, bringing a pathway to acquire Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan while excluding Muslims from similar benefits. |
| 13th December 2019 | A widespread protest took place across the country against the enforcement of the Impugned Amendment Act since it was discriminatory in nature and violated fundamental rights and constitutional principles. |
| 16th December 2019 | A number of petitions came to be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Impugned Amendment Act on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. |
| 31st December 2019 | The Kerala Legislative Assembly passed a resolution that urged the Union Government to repeal the Impugned Amendment Act as it is discriminatory in nature. |
| 2022 | Hence, the present suit has been filed. |
3. Cause title and memo of parties
Explanation: This section of the suit must mention the court that is going to hear the case and the nature of the jurisdiction of the Court under which it will entertain the suit, along with the case number, names and description of the parties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SUIT NO_____ of 2022
(SUIT UNDER ARTICLE 131 R/W ORDER XXVI OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013)
IN THE MATTER OF:
State of Kerala
Represented by the Chief Secretary
Government of Kerala Government
Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram
KERALA STATE …PLAINTIFF
Versus
Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance
North Block Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110001 ….DEFENDANT
SUIT UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XXVI RULES 1 TO 12 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013, FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES
4. Introduction
4.1 Parties to the suit
Explanation: The parties section must identify the State of Kerala as the Plaintiff and the Union of India as the Defendant and that the dispute is between the State and the Union of India.
1. The plaintiff is a State of the defendant Union of India, as provided under Article 1 read with the First Schedule to the Constitution of India. The plaintiff -The State of Kerala is instituting the present Original Suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India invoking the original jurisdiction of this Hon‘ble Court as the subject matter of the suit is a dispute between the State of Kerala and the Union of India.
2. The Defendant is the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, having the address as mentioned in the cause title.
4.2 Service details
Explanation: In this section, you need to provide the address where notices and summons can be served upon the Plaintiff. It should also include the specific details of the Advocate-on-Record, including their name and chamber number for proper service of documents.
3. The address for the purpose of service of notices, summons and processes on the Plaintiff is on its Advocate-on-Record Mr./Ms.__________ at Chamber No._______.
4.3 Challenge
Explanation: The paragraph must set out that the suit challenges the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
4. The Plaintiff challenges the Impugned Amendment Act enacted by the Defendant in the present suit. The Impugned Amendment Act is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution and compromises the basic structure of the Constitution.
5. Facts of the case
Explanation: The facts section should provide a comprehensive overview of the details that are included in your list of dates and events. Additionally, all the important annexures that you are relying upon in the matter must be included in the facts of your case.
5. The Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Principal Act”) was enacted on 30.12.1955 to establish a structured legal framework for acquiring Indian citizenship. It provided clear and secular guidelines for citizenship through birth, descent, registration, and naturalization. A copy of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-1.
6. The Principal Act, with the passage of time, underwent significant amendments. On 1.7.1987, the criteria for citizenship by birth were revised, limiting automatic citizenship only to individuals with at least one Indian parent. Further, on 3.12.2004, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, introduced the concept of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) and imposed further restrictions on citizenship by birth. A copy of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-2.
Next, you will transition to explaining the 2019 CAA amendments, clearly outlining the key changes introduced and noting the Presidential assent date of December 12, 2019.
This is a gist of how the facts will look like:
7. On 12.12.2019, when the Impugned Amendment Act received the assent of the President marked a major change. This amendment act brought about significant changes to the Principal Act by making way for a special pathway for citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, this provision completely excluded Muslims from availing these benefits. Additionally, the Impugned Amendment Act set a cut-off date of 31st December 2014, meaning only those non-Muslim refugees who entered India before this date could seek Indian citizenship under the amended law. A copy of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-3.
I am not repeating all the facts here. You can copy and paste from the list of dates and expand where required.
6. Grounds
Explanation: This part pertains to the grounds and in this part, the constitutional violations need to be presented systematically. You can start with violations under Article 14 regarding equality and arbitrary religious classification. You can then go on to explain the violations committed under Article 21 regarding the right to life and personal liberty. Lastly, you can mention the violations committed under Article 25 regarding religious freedom. You can conclude by explaining how the Act is violative of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
8. That the Impugned Amendment Act violates the core constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 14, 21, and 25 and undermines the basic structure of the Constitution in the following manner:
i. The Impugned Amendment Act introduces a completely biased classification by giving preferential treatment to migrants from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities while deliberately excluding Muslims. Such a biased classification lacks the purported objective of protecting the persecuted minorities. The Impugned Amendment Act violates the fundamental right to equality and fairness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution by creating a classification based on religion.
ii. The exclusion of Muslim migrants from reaping the benefits of the Impugned Amendment Act results in discrimination that deprives Muslim migrants of their fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity. Such a discriminatory approach is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which upholds the dignity and security of all individuals, irrespective of their caste, creed and religion.
iii. The Impugned Amendment Act categorically uses religion as a criterion for citizenship by giving preferential treatment to specific religious communities to the exclusion of others. This approach is against the secular fabric of the Constitution and restricts the fundamental right to freedom of religion mentioned under Article 25 of the Constitution.
iv. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1] established that the basic structure of the Constitution includes principles of secularism, equality and non-discrimination, which cannot be altered by legislative action. The Impugned Amendment Act fundamentally compromises these principles by introducing religion as a basis in citizenship matters.
7. Cause of action
Explanation: This part shall clearly state that the initial cause of action arose on 12th December 2019, when the Act received the assent of the President. It shall then emphasize the point that the cause continues to exist as the discriminatory provisions remain in force.
9. The cause of action arose on 12th December 2019 when the Impugned Amendment Act received the assent of the President, and the cause of action is still continuing since the Impugned Amendment Act remains in force, thereby discriminating against specific communities.
8. Jurisdiction
Explanation: This part will show that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter.
10. There are substantial questions of law involved in the present suit that deal with the constitutional validity of the Impugned Amendment Act. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit.
9. Additional clauses
Explanation: These are mandatory clauses that confirm that no other legal proceedings other than the present one are filed for the same relief. You must also give reference to the annexed documents and mention the readiness of the Plaintiff to produce original documents when required by the Court.
11. That the Plaintiff has not filed any other legal proceedings seeking the same relief in any court of law.
12. The copies of the annexures relied upon by Plaintiff have been annexed and Plaintiff seeks liberty to produce the originals of the same as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court.
10. Prayer
The prayer clause should include the declaration or relief which the plaintiff claims. This should consist of a generic prayer for the suit to be allowed, followed by the specific relief(s) claimed. Here is how the prayer clause shall look in the present case.
13. The Plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
i) Pass a judgment and decree declaring that the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is violative of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India and violates the basic structure principle of secularism;
ii) Pass a judgment and decree declaring the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and void;
iii) Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Was this easy to understand? This is how you draft a suit under Article 131. With this, you have learned a new skill today.
But wait, what if I want to change something in the plaint at a later stage?
Can I do that? Did this question also come to your mind?
That brings us to our next question.
How is a plaint amended?
So if, at a later stage, you wish to amend the plaint [subject to the provisions and principles governing amendment of suits], you must obtain the consent of the court, which will be expressed by the court through an order.
For this, an application seeking amendment of plaint has to be moved before the court.
You can find the procedure followed for the amendment of the suit filed under Article 131 under Order XXIX of the Supreme Court Rules.
But if you wish to rectify a clerical error, the Registrar can do so without notice to other parties. In case the Registrar passes such an order, then that order has to be served on all the parties, unless the Registrar waives this requirement.
Do you want to know what is the next step? The next step is the service of summons upon the defendants.
Summons are nothing but a notice of the court informing the defendants that there is a case that is filed against them and they are required to appear in the court on a particular date.
But who will accept the summons? Let’s find out.
Who receives the summons in original suits?
The summons along with a copy of the plaint is served by registered post to the Attorney-General for India or the Advocate-General for the State, as the case may be, or to an advocate-on-record of the defendant who is authorized to accept service.
After the summons is issued, let us see what happens.
What is the procedure followed after summons are issued?
As seen above, every summons is endorsed with a notice requiring the defendant to enter an appearance within twenty-eight days after the summons has been served. If the defendant does not enter appearance, the matter is proceeded with ex-parte.
The defendant is required to give notice of his having entered an appearance to the plaintiff. Within fourteen days after the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff is to take out a summons for directions returnable before the Judge in Chambers.
The Judge, on the hearing of the summons, gives further directions with respect to pleadings, interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, the discovery, inspection and production of documents and such other interlocutory matters as he may think expedient.
Under Order XXVIII, the defendant is to file his written statement, set-off and counter-claim against the suit so filed within 28 days.
The provisions mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding discovery and inspection of documents, admissions, summoning and attendance of witnesses, hearing of suits, examination of witnesses, and withdrawal and adjustment of suits shall apply for adjudicating an original suit.
We have reached the final part of this article, and there is one last piece of the puzzle that you must know.
What happens when the plaint is rejected?
Where a plaint is rejected, the Court shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for the order.
It is pertinent to mention that the rejection of the plaint in itself does not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. However, the plaintiff should ideally seek the liberty of the court in such cases or where the suit is being withdrawn to file a fresh plaint.
The provisions dealing with the rejection of the plaint are provided in Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules.
Conclusion
I can certainly say that in the future if there is ever a dispute between the Centre and a State or between two states, you are now aware of a direct route to the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute.
FAQs
1. Can a suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution be withdrawn?
With prior permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution can be withdrawn.
2. Which are the landmark cases that have played a key role in interpreting Article 131?
- State of West Bengal v. Union of India [1964 SCR (1) 371]: This was the first case where Article 131 was invoked by a State against the Union Government. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 does not extend to disputes relating to the Parliament’s power to legislate on compulsory acquisition of state-owned property.
- State of Karnataka v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 68]: The Supreme Court in this case held that mere political disagreements do not fall under the purview of Article 131 and that the matters brought before the court are of political and executive nature and not judicial in nature.
Leave a Reply