Disputes Between the Union and a State: Article 131

Why it matters is that it keeps the jurisdiction from being read so narrowly that it becomes useless. A State's interest in the constitutional position of its own government is a legal interest.

What article 131 will not do

It will not decide a political grievance. A State that dislikes a Union policy has no legal right infringed, and the jurisdiction does not extend to it.

It will not be used by a private person. The parties are governments.

It does not reach a water dispute. Article 262(2) permits Parliament to exclude the Supreme Court from an inter-State water dispute, and section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 has done so.

And it does not always give the State what it wants. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241. Facts. The Union's acquisition of coal-bearing land vested in the State under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957, the State suing under article 131 on the footing that it was sovereign within its own field. Held, by the majority. The Constitution is not traditionally federal in the sense of a compact between sovereign units, that the States were not sovereign before it, that Parliament's legislative power extends to the property of a State unless the Constitution provides otherwise, and that no constitutional guarantee protects a State's property against acquisition by the Union. Subba Rao J. dissented. Why it matters here is that the jurisdiction was available and the State still lost, which is the ordinary outcome of an umpire doing its job.

A worked example

A State wishes to challenge a Union statute that it says is beyond Parliament's legislative competence and destroys a State subject. May it use article 131, and should it?

It may. A dispute about legislative competence between the Union and a State is a question of law on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends, and there is a long-standing question, argued in more than one case, about whether a State may use article 131 to challenge the constitutionality of a Union law rather than a specific act affecting it.

The argument that it may not is that article 131 speaks of a legal right, and a State has no legal right that a Union statute be constitutional; the appropriate route is a challenge by a person affected, under article 226 or article 32.

The argument that it may is State of Karnataka: a State has sufficient interest in questions about the ambit of constitutional provisions whose operation is of vital interest to it, and it is too technical to say no suit lies where the two representatives of the people differ on interpretation.

Whether it should is a separate question, and a good answer separates them. An article 131 suit is heard by the Supreme Court at first instance, on pleadings and issues, with no appeal. A challenge under article 226 gets a High Court judgment first, which sharpens the questions, and then a hearing under article 136. States have often preferred the second route for that reason.

And note the alternative the Union has. Under article 143 the President may refer a question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion, which is how the Berubari question and the assent question of 2025 were both decided. That is the Union's route and it is not available to a State.

The advisory jurisdiction, for contrast

Article 143(1). If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or of fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question, and the Court may after such hearing as it thinks fit report to the President its opinion thereon.

The opinion is not a judgment and does not bind as res judicata, but it is followed. In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, the opinion pronounced on 14 March 1960, is the standard example. Facts. The Indo-Pakistan Agreement of 1958 requiring the division of Berubari Union and the exchange of the Cooch-Behar enclaves, and Held. Article 3 governs the internal readjustment of the territories of States and does not authorise the cession of Indian territory to a foreign State, so a law under article 3 would be incompetent and an amendment under article 368 was necessary. Why it matters here is that it shows the two federal jurisdictions side by side: article 131 is adversarial and belongs to the governments, article 143 is advisory and belongs to the President.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean every Union and State disagreement goes to the Supreme Court. Most reach it as an ordinary challenge by a private person under article 226 and then article 136.

It does not mean a State always has standing. The dispute must involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends, and a political grievance does not.

It does not cover water disputes. Article 262 and section 11 of the Act of 1956 exclude them.

And it does not mean a successful invocation produces a successful outcome. State of West Bengal is the standing example of a State using the jurisdiction and losing.

Quick revision

Article 131: exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Union and States on one side and other States on the other, or between two or more States, if and so far as it involves a question, whether of law or fact, on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The proviso excludes disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, covenants and similar instruments still in operation. Exclusive: no High Court may entertain such a dispute. A private person may neither invoke it nor be a party. Water disputes are excluded by article 262 and section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956. State of Karnataka v. Union of India, seven judges, four to three: a State challenging Union action against its Ministers in respect of the exercise of its governmental powers has sufficient interest, because what it claims appertains to the State as a State. State of West Bengal v. Union of India: the jurisdiction was available and the State lost. Article 143: the President's advisory reference, an opinion rather than a judgment, as in In re Berubari.

Test yourself

1. State the jurisdiction article 131 confers and the limitation on it. Exclusive original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Union and States on one side and other States on the other, or 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.

2. Why can a private person not use article 131? Because the article names the parties: the Government of India and the States. An individual is neither, and a private grievance about a federal question goes to a High Court under article 226 instead.

3. What did State of Karnataka v. Union of India decide, and by what margin? By four to three, that the suit was maintainable: a State challenging Union action against its Ministers in respect of acts involving the exercise of its governmental powers has sufficient interest, because what it claims appertains to the State as a State, and it is too technical to deny a suit where the State and the Union differ on the interpretation of the Constitution.

4. Name two categories of dispute article 131 will not take. A political grievance in which no legal right is in issue; and an inter-State water dispute, which article 262(2) permits Parliament to exclude and which section 11 of the Act of 1956 has excluded.

5. Distinguish article 131 from article 143. Article 131 is adversarial original jurisdiction between governments, producing a binding decree with no appeal. Article 143 is advisory: the President refers a question of law or fact of public importance and the Court reports an opinion, which is followed but does not bind as res judicata.

6. Why do States often prefer article 226 to article 131? Because an article 131 suit is heard by the Supreme Court at first instance on pleadings and issues with no appeal, whereas a challenge through a High Court under article 226 produces a reasoned judgment that sharpens the questions before the Supreme Court hears the matter under article 136.