Introduction

Article 131 of the Indian Constitution grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of India to decide specific inter-governmental disputes. It empowers the Court to directly hear conflicts involving the Union Government and one or more States, or disputes between two or more States. This jurisdiction applies only when the dispute involves a real legal right and not a political disagreement. Article 131 acts as a constitutional safeguard to maintain federal balance by resolving Centre–State and inter-State conflicts through judicial means rather than political confrontation.

Why Is Article 131 Called Original Jurisdiction?

Article 131 is described as original jurisdiction because cases under this provision are filed directly before the Supreme Court. The parties do not approach any lower court before invoking it. The Supreme Court becomes the court of first instance. This jurisdiction is also exclusive, meaning no High Court or subordinate court can hear such disputes. The Constitution deliberately reserves these sensitive federal disputes for the highest judicial authority to ensure uniformity and finality.

Who Can Invoke Article 131 Jurisdiction?

Only constitutionally recognised governments can invoke Article 131. The parties must be either the Government of India or one or more States. Private individuals, corporations, public sector undertakings, or statutory authorities cannot file cases under this provision. Even government departments lack standing unless the State or Union formally espouses the dispute. This limitation preserves Article 131 as a forum strictly for federal disputes involving sovereign entities.

What Types of Disputes Are Covered Under Article 131?

Article 131 applies only when a dispute involves a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The dispute must concern enforceable constitutional or legal rights. Issues such as legislative competence, distribution of executive powers, financial obligations, or constitutional authority fall within its scope. Purely political disagreements, ideological differences, or policy objections without legal consequences do not qualify.

What Is the Difference Between a Legal Right and a Political Dispute?

The Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear distinction between legal disputes and political wrangles. A legal right refers to a right recognised and enforceable under the Constitution or law. A political dispute, on the other hand, involves disagreement over policy, governance choices, or political strategy. Article 131 excludes disputes that merely challenge the wisdom or propriety of government decisions without asserting a legal violation. The Court intervenes only when adjudication of legal rights becomes necessary.

Does Article 131 Require an Actual Violation of Rights?

An actual violation of a legal right is not always mandatory. The Supreme Court has clarified that a genuine dispute regarding the existence or extent of a legal right is sufficient. If a serious and justiciable controversy exists, the Court can exercise jurisdiction even before harm occurs. However, the dispute must be real and substantial. The Court will reject cases that disguise political grievances as legal claims.

How Does the Proviso Limit Article 131?

The proviso to Article 131 restricts the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain historical disputes. It excludes cases arising from treaties, agreements, covenants, sanads, or similar instruments executed before the Constitution came into force. If such instruments continue to operate or expressly bar judicial intervention, the Supreme Court cannot adjudicate those disputes under Article 131. This limitation respects historical arrangements made during India’s constitutional transition.

Can Parliament Restrict Article 131 Jurisdiction?

Article 131 operates subject to other provisions of the Constitution. This means that where the Constitution creates specialised mechanisms or tribunals to resolve specific disputes, Article 131 may not apply. For example, disputes relating to water sharing between States may fall under Article 262 and be excluded from judicial review. The Supreme Court has recognised that constitutional schemes can impliedly limit Article 131 jurisdiction.

What Did the Supreme Court Say in State of Rajasthan v Union of India?

In State of Rajasthan v Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasised that Article 131 is not meant to resolve political controversies. The Court refused to entertain a challenge based solely on political disagreement with Union actions. It held that unless a specific legal right of a State is infringed or threatened, Article 131 cannot be invoked. This judgment reinforced the requirement of justiciability.

Why Is State of Karnataka v Union of India Important?

State of Karnataka v Union of India significantly expanded the understanding of Article 131. The Supreme Court held that a dispute is maintainable if it concerns a question affecting the existence or extent of a legal right. The Court clarified that the absence of an actual infringement does not bar jurisdiction. This case strengthened States’ ability to seek judicial clarification of constitutional limits before irreversible harm occurs.

How Does Article 131 Support Federalism in India?

Article 131 plays a crucial role in preserving India’s federal structure. It provides a neutral judicial forum where disputes between different levels of government can be resolved peacefully. By allowing direct access to the Supreme Court, it prevents unilateral action and political escalation. This mechanism promotes cooperative federalism and reinforces constitutional discipline among governments.

Why Is Article 131 Called a Federal Safety Valve?

Article 131 acts as a federal safety valve because it channels sensitive disputes into a legal framework. Instead of resolving conflicts through political pressure or administrative coercion, governments rely on constitutional adjudication. This reduces institutional friction and strengthens trust in the judiciary. It ensures that federal conflicts are settled based on law rather than power dynamics.

Conclusion

In contemporary governance, Article 131 remains a vital constitutional tool. It helps resolve disputes over legislative powers, fiscal federalism, administrative authority, and constitutional interpretation. As Centre–State relations grow more complex, Article 131 continues to uphold constitutional supremacy and democratic stability. Its careful use ensures that federal disputes strengthen, rather than weaken, India’s constitutional framework.