15 July 2024

1. Apex Court Interprets the Scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in West Bengal’s Suit Against the Centre

In State of West Bengal vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court while maintaining the validity of an original Suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India concerning the suo motu registration of cases by the CBI for offences committed within the State without its consent, made significant observations regarding Article 131 of the Constitution.

What is Article 131 of the Constitution?

Article 131 deals with the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in a dispute between:

1. the Government of India (Centre) and one or more Slates;
2. between the Government of India (Centre) and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
3. 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:

Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, named or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.

 Arguments of the Parties

• The suit was filed against the Union under Article 131. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta fervently argued against the maintainability of the suit, claiming that the CBI was an independent legal entity with a separate identity.
• To support this argument, he relied on a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of the State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Union of India and Others. However, the Court noted that, even in the aforementioned case, it was emphasised that Article 131 serves as a forum for resolving disputes related to the existence or extent of a legal right.
• The State contended that even after revoking its consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 (Act), the CBI continued to register FIRs for offenses occurring within the State. Calling this an act of constitutional overreach, the State also noted that the CBI was established by the Union.

Thus, the Court opined that it cannot be denied that the State has not presented a cause of action against the Union. Drawing from the State of Rajasthan’s case, the Court highlighted that the legal right of the States consists in their immunity, in the sense of freedom from the power of the Union Government.

The Union also argued that even if the CBI is considered an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it cannot be equated with the term “Government of India” as defined in Article 131 of the Constitution. To support this argument, they cited several cases, including the State of Bihar vs. Union of India, where Hindustan Steel Limited was made a party in an Article 131 suit. However, the Court found no reason to apply the definition of “State” from Article 12 for the purposes of Article 131.

Observation of Apex Court

• The Court in the current case did not accept the argument made by the union. Upon examining the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Court concluded that the Central Government oversees the DSPE (Special police force), except in matters of corruption.
• The Court pointed out that, under Section 3 of the Act, the DSPE is only authorised to investigate offenses that the Central Government specifies. Additionally, the Court emphasised that while Section 5 of the Act permits the DSPE’s powers to be extended to any State, this extension requires the consent of the State Government, as mandated by Section 6 of the Act.

On this reason, the Court categorically rejected the Union’s argument and said that it “holds no water.”

The Court reasoned for its opinion that the CBI is an organ or a body which is established by and which is under the superintendence of the Government of India in view of the statutory scheme as enacted by the DSPE Act.

Jurisdiction under Article 131 Subjected To Article 262

• The Court also asserted that involvement in proceedings under Article 32 (remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights), Article 136 (Special Leave Petition), or even Article 226 (power of High Courts to issue writs) of the Indian Constitution does not preclude a party from seeking a remedy under Article 131.
• The Court focused on the words of the Article 131, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute….”
• The Apex Court relied upon a series of decisions to interpret the above-mentioned phrase. The judgments include the case of The South India Corporation (P) Limited vs. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and Another, which relates to Article 372 (Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation). The Court held an opinion that these words should be given an interpretation that is reasonable and reflects the intention of the makers of the Constitution. In this context, it was held that a pre-Constitution law enacted by a competent authority shall remain in effect, as long as it does not violate the “other provisions” of the Constitution.
• The Court furthermore referred to another Constitution Bench’s judgment in case of Union of India and Another vs. Tulsiram Patel, which pertained to Article 309 of the Indian Constitution (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State). As per the proviso to this Article, any competent person can be directed to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service. It was held that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 must be made subject to the provisions of this Constitution if they are to be valid.
• With this background established, the Court noted that Article 131 grants special jurisdiction to decide any question concerning the existence or extent of a legal right. In light of this, the Court stated that the jurisdiction under Article 131 would be subject only to provisions concerning disputes between the parties specified in this provision.

On above reasoning, the Court rejected the Unions argument, stating that it “would not be in consonance with the constitutional scheme.”