NAME- MEHAK SHARMA

CLASS- BA.LLB 2ND YEAR

ROLL NO- DY22LAWU0ALL012
SUBJECT- CONSTITUTION LAW
PROFESSOR- ADV. ABHINAV MISHRA
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

OBJECTIVES
1] To understand the importance of original jurisdiction of the supreme court of India.
2] Analysing the legal provision and landmarks cases revolving around Article 131 of the
Constitution of India.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1] What does the legal provision of Article 131 of the constitution say about the original
jurisdiction of supreme court?
2] How has Article 131 evolved?
3] What are the landmark case laws where Article 131 has been invoked?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research method used in the research paper involves a doctrinal approach where by
different articles and journals was referred to write the research paper. Along with the articles
and journals the Constitution of India was referred for citing the legal provisions. The
research focused on the qualitative aspect of the topic.
LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India is the last appellate court and the highest constitutional court. It
is given very wide powers to fulfil the sacred duties. The court hears appeals from lower
courts, interprets and enforces the Constitution, protects and defends the fundamental rights
of citizens, and resolves disputes between states. The Supreme Court was established in 1950
and inherited the jurisdiction of the federal court. Since then, the practice and procedures of
the Supreme Court have changed significantly. The Supreme Court of India is often referred
to as the most powerful national court in any country.
HISTORY
The history of the Supreme Court can be traced back to the Government of India Act of 1935.
The Act created a federal court responsible for resolving disputes between the federal states
and the provinces. In addition, the Federal Court also had jurisdiction to hear appeals from
the Court of Appeal. A Court of Appeal decision can be appealed to the Federal Court if the
Court of Appeal confirms that substantial questions of law are involved. But the federal court
could only make declaratory judgments. The court had the power to declare the law, but it
could not enforce its decision. The jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court are similar
to those of the Federal Court. However, in some cases the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
extended beyond that of the Federal Court. For example, there was no provision in the
Government of India Act to allow a federal court to review an application for a special
license. Because the Court of Appeals did not determine that there were any substantial
questions of law involved, no appeal was filed in federal court. Article 124 of the
Constitution of India foresees the establishment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
was established on 28 January 1950 and the first judge to preside over the Supreme Court of
India (before independence) was Hon'ble Justice Harilal Jekisundas Kania.
LEGAL PROVISION AND CASE LAWS
Original jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of a court as a court of first instance to hear and decide
a case. Article 131 explains the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It provides that the
court is competent to exercise original jurisdiction-
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) 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:

1 [Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, Sanad 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.]
Disputes under this Article must raise a substantial question of legal rights. No other court has
jurisdiction over the disputes referred to in this article. The intention of the framers of the
Constitution to give such broad jurisdiction to the Supreme Court was to ensure that such
disputes would be finally resolved in the highest federal court. However, the provision of
Article 131 states that the Supreme Court may sit in court excluded from any contract,
agreement or similar document. This Article is based on Section 204 of the Government of
India Act, 1935. Furthermore, the wording of Article 131 suggests that it is to be read in
conjunction with other provisions of the Constitution and "in addition". Thus, the original
jurisdiction under Article 131 can be limited by other provisions of the constitution, such as
in disputes relating to the operation and distribution of the waters of interstate rivers (Article
262) or in relation to the recommendations of the president to the Finance Commission under
Article 280. In addition to these constitutional provisions, Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 provides that the Supreme Court may transfer any case from a High Court or
Civil Court of one State to a High Court or Civil Court of another State. In the important case
State of Bihar Vs. Union of India (1969) the plaintiff was the State of Bihar and the
defendants were the Union Government (first defendant) and Hindustan Steel Limited and
Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The claimant brought an action in the Supreme Court
under Article 131 and the main question before the Court was whether the action could be
brought under the above Article. The Court ruled that Article 131 obliges the Court to decide
only on statutory law. The court further said that the application filed under Article 131 was
inadmissible because the dispute would fall within the ambit of Article 131 only if there was
no private party involved in the dispute. Even if a private party filed a suit along with the
government, the claim would not come within the ambit of Article 131.
RESTRICTIONS ON ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 cannot be invoked to
question the constitutional validity of any law passed by the parliament. This limitation was
actually recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India
(2011). In that case, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed a suit against the Union of India and
the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner wanted to save for certain notices and orders.
Madhya Pradesh then filed an amendment seeking to add a second prayer to declare certain
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 unconstitutional. However, the
Supreme Court rejected the application, but noted that the original competence of the
Supreme Court cannot be relied upon when challenging the constitutional validity of the
Central Law. The constitutional validity of any law can be challenged under Article 32 and
the court can exercise its jurisdiction to grant an appropriate review. However, it is pertinent
to note that in State of Jharkhand Vs. State of Bihar (2015), the court expressed doubts about
the correctness of the reasoning in the Madhya Pradesh case. The court noted that under
Article 131, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction extends to "all disputes" between the Centre and
the states. A dispute may be of fact or of law. Therefore, the competence of the Court cannot
be limited by excluding disputes about the validity of the Central Law. Thus, the court
referred to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India for wider case law to establish its
correctness.
FINDINGS
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is the cornerstone of the constitutional
edifice of the country, embodying the principles of federalism, justice and constitutional
supremacy. Through its judicial function, the Supreme Court acts as a safeguard against
government excess and ensures the protection of fundamental rights and democratic values.
As India navigates the complexities of a rapidly evolving legal environment, the importance
of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction remains intact, reflecting its continued
commitment to justice and the rule of law.