Explanation of topic
Article 131 vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over any dispute arising between the states or between the centre and state. The article gives the Supreme Court the power to take up such cases straight instead of going through a lower court or reviewing a lower court’s judgment.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution enshrines this provision whereby individuals may seek redressal for the violation of their fundamental rights. … Constitutional weapons, known as ‘writs’, for the enforcement of such rights.
Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.
(Courtesy:” What is article 131? Why has Kerala Government invoked article to challenge CAA in Supreme Court?” by Jagran Josh published on 15 January 2020)
(Courtesy: Right to Constitutional Remedy: Significance of Article 32 by economic and political weekly published on Aug 21-Sep 3 1999)
(Courtesy: Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India – Their Scope, Powers And Differences by mondaq published on 12 April 2018)
Passage
Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes involving States, or the Centre on the one hand and one or more States on the other. This means no other court can entertain such a dispute. It is well-known that both High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to adjudicate cases against the State and Central governments. In particular, the validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. Unlike individuals, State governments cannot complain of fundamental rights being violated. Therefore, the Constitution provides that whenever a State feels that its legal rights are under threat or have been violated, it can take the “dispute” to the Supreme Court. States have filed such cases under Article 131 against neighboring States in respect of river water sharing and boundary disputes. There have been instances of such cases being filed against the Centre too. In 2011, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, the court said: “…when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 131.”
However, in State of Jharkhand vs. State of Bihar and Another (2014), another Bench said it was unable to accept the view that the constitutionality of a law cannot be raised in a suit under Article 131. Therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
(Courtesy: “Can states challenge the validity of central laws?” by The Hindu published on 19 January 2020)
Questions:
1. Art. 131 of the constitution deals with?
a) Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme court
b) Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
c) Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court
d) Writs
Ans: c
Rationale: Article 131 vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over any dispute arising between the states or between the centre and state. The article gives the Supreme Court the power to take up such cases straight instead of going through a lower court or reviewing a lower court’s judgment.
2. Which of the following statements stand correct?
a) The validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 32 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 226 in the Supreme Court.
b) The validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 131 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 226 in the Supreme Court.
c) The validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 131 in the Supreme Court.
d) The validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.
Ans: d
Rationale: The validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. Unlike individuals, State governments cannot complain of fundamental rights being violated.
3. The state of xyz ’s fundamental rights have been violated. Which of the following authority will it approach?
a) High court of that state
b) District courts
c) Supreme court
d) Nota
Ans: c
Rationale: the Constitution provides that whenever a State feels that its legal rights are under threat or have been violated, it can take the “dispute” to the Supreme Court. States have filed such cases under Article 131 against neighboring States in respect of river water sharing and boundary disputes.
4. State of Sadhya Pradesh and Yuttar Pradesh are having a river water sharing dispute between them under which of the following articles will they take the dispute to the Supreme court?
a)Art32
b)Art 226
c) Art 131
d)Art 246
Ans: c
Rationale: the Constitution provides that whenever a State feels that its legal rights are under threat or have been violated, it can take the “dispute” to the Supreme Court. States have filed such cases under Article 131 against neighboring States in respect of river water sharing and boundary disputes.
5. , In State of Jharkhand vs. State of Bihar and Another (2014), another Bench said it was unable to accept the view that the constitutionality of a law cannot be raised in a suit under Article 131.Why was it so?
a) As in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, the court said: “…when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 131, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 226.
b) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, the court said: “…when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 226, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 32.
c) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, the court said: “…when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 246.
d)All the above statements stands incorrect
Ans d
Rationale: In 2011, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, the court said: “…when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 131.”
Carefully read the Above statements provided in options.
