Akriti Sharma & Sonal Hundlani

Transcription

1 EXTENT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT Akriti Sharma & Sonal Hundlani Symbiosis Law School, Noida Article 131 of the Indian Constitution explains the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. HISTORY OF ARTICLE 131 The Supreme Court of India was set up in 1950 where Article 32 says that the apex court is the guardian of fundamental rights and any person of whom these rights are infringed can approach the Supreme Court for remedy. The Supreme Court of India is the final authority to see to it that the division of powers as specified in the constitution is obeyed by both the Union and the State governments. Therefore, Article 131 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the original and exclusive jurisdiction to find the justiciable disputes between the Union and the States or between the States. Any matter related to the enforcement of the FR s comes under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is the Highest Interpreter of the Constitution and tribunal for settlement of the interstate and the matter between state and union. Till 1962, there had been no such case which came under the umbrella of the original jurisdiction. It seemed that any dispute between the Union and the units or between the units inter se had been so far settled by negotiation or agreement rather than by suits. 1 The first suit was brought by State of West Bengal 2 in 1961 against the Union of India where the unconstitutionality of the Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957 was dismissed. EXPLANATION OF THE ARTICLE The Supreme Court of India works on a federal system of the constitution where the Article 131 lays down the parties involved in the cases which come under the ambit of Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. The parties are the different units of the federation which will come under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the apex court. 3 If the court tries to entertain the cases which aren t a part of the federation, it infringes the norms laid down by the given article. 1 DR. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION pg.319(21 st ed. 2013) AIR 1241, 1964 SCR (1) BASU, supra 1 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2 Attempts have been made to determine the scope this word initially the definition of State 4 was treated as exhaustive and confined to the authorities or those which could be read with the authorities mentioned in the definition of Article 12 itself. The definition of State came to be understood with reference to the remedies available against it. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ors 5 also talks about this. The point there was that if the Electricity Board which was a corporation constituted under a statute primarily for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities could come within the definition of State in article Conditions and limitations on the original jurisdiction of the apex court are the parties and the subject matter. The Supreme Court is chosen as the authority in the interstate cases or the cases between the Union and states so that no state can take the advantage of the jurisdiction to be chosen. The matters should have the question of law or fact on which depends the existence of a legal right which the court interprets. HOHFELD S JURISPRUDENTIAL THEORY OF RIGHTS A Legal right can be said as, that power which a man has to make a person or persons do or refrain from doing a certain act or certain acts, so far as the power arises from society imposing a legal duty upon a person or persons. According to Salmond: A right is an interest recognized and protected by a rule of right. It is any interest respect for which is a duty, and the disregard of which is a wrong. A close reading of the text of Part III of the Constitution of India indicates that broadly it deals with two kinds of legal interest. First, freedom or liberties on citizens/persons: for instance, the right under Article 19, the right to life and liberty under Article 21, the right to religion under Article 26 etc. Secondly, prohibition on the Government from acting contrary to certain principles: the rule of equality as embodied in Articles 14, 15 and 16 for example. 7 It is a well settled law that the guarantee of fundamental rights provided by the Part III of the constitution is only against the state as defined under Article 12 of the constitution. 8 Indisputably absence of such a duty is indicative of the fact that constitution by virtue of this provisions doesn t confer Hohfeldian right to the enjoyment of freedoms embodied in Part III. To the contrary, the legal interests conferred by Part III are in fact, Hohfeldian 4 State under the Indian Constitution (assessed September 29, 2015) available from AIR 1857, 1967 SCR (3) INDIAN CONST., art.12 7 Arvind P. Datar, Hohfeldian Analysis- Application of, by the Indian Judiciary: A lawyer s Perspective, (Dec. 21,2012) 8 P.D. Shadasani v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1952 SC 59 2 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

3 Privileges i.e. they provide that state has a correlative no right to interfere in the exercise of these freedoms. 9 TIMELINE OF THE PRECEDENTS In the case of State of Bihar v Union of India 10, it was said that the Hindustan Steel Ltd. Which was a registered company, could not contest in the court as it doesn t come under the explanation of the word State in Art. 131 of the Constitution. The main question that comes is that what exactly is the meaning of State under art. 131? the article says that the disputes should be in respect of legal rights and not disputes of the political characteristics. So as to explain the statement, a legal right according to Black s Law Dictionary is Lawfully guaranteed powers a legal entity acquires from winning a court decision. Realization or defence of just and lawful claims or interests against The whole world is the basis. Whether or not the existence such rights is publicly known, legal rights as laws impact every citizen. In the case of State of Rajasthan v Union of India 11 it was observed that the supreme court attracted only when dispute arises between or amongst the States and the Union of India in the context of the constitutional relationship that exists between them and the powers, rights, duties, immunities, liabilities, disabilities, etc., flowing there from. Whether a suit filed by the State against the Union of India for recovery of compensation for loss on account of damage caused to goods despatched through the Indian Railways could be filed in a civil court. It was held that the case was maintainable only in the District Court and not in the Supreme Court. These suits can t be filled in the Supreme Court as there is no question of rights or claims of the state or union. In the case of State of Karnataka v Union of India 12 said that The Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and distributes the sovereign powers between the co- ordinate constitutional entitles, namely, the Union and the States. This concept implies that one cannot encroach upon the governmental functions or instrumentalities of the other, unless the Constitution expressly provides for such interference. The legislative fields allotted to the units cover subjects for legislation and they do not deal with the relationship between the two co-ordinate units functioning in their allotted fields: this is regulated by other provisions of the Constitution and there is no provision which enables one unit to take away the property of another except by agreement. The future stability of our vast country with its unity in diversity depends upon the strict adherence of the federal principle, which the fathers of our Constitution have so wisely and foresightedly incorporated therein. The Court has the constitutional power and delicate one to prevent encroachment, either 9 Hohfeld s Analysis of Rights: An Essential Approach to a Conceptual and Practical Understanding of the Nature of Rights (assessed 2005) available from 10 (1970) 1 SCC 67: AIR 1970 SC (1977) 3 SCC 592: AIR 1977 SC SCR (2) 1: 1978 AIR 68 3 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

4 overtly or covertly, by the Union of State field or vice versa and thus maintain the balance of federation. The present is a typical case where the Court should stop the Union from overstepping its boundary and trespassing into the State field. It was held that the impugned Act, in so far as it confers a power on the Union to acquire the lands owned by the State, including coal mines and coa bearing lands, is ultra vires. It was held against the defendant; In view of the findings on the said issue, did not propose to express the opinion on the issue. In the result, there was no decree in favour of the plaintiff. The case was dismissed with additional costs. In the case of State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh 13, a suit was filed by State of Karnataka against the State of Andhra Pradesh raising a dispute for non- implementation of the decision by a water tribunal under Sec. 4 of Inter State Water Dispute Act, 1956, had to be maintained. The judges did not want to take the restrictive view of the article. they were not prepared to distinguish between State and it s government. The majority view was that there is an integral relationship between the state and the government. In the case of State of Haryana v State of Punjab 14, the court issued a mandatory injunction directing the State of Punjab to complete the Sutlej Yamuna link canal by the end of the year and make it functional by then as well. The court directed the Central Government to discharge its constitutional obligations to ensure the completion as soon as possible. 15 MY OWN CRITICAL INTERPRETATION CHANDRACHUD, J. in State of Karnataka v Union of India dais that The object of Art.131 is to provide a high powered machinery for ensuring the Central Government and the State Government act within the respective spheres of their authority and do not trespass upon each other s constitutional functions and powers. The responsibility of interpreting the constitution rests on the Supreme Court. The interpretation of the constitution which the Supreme Court shall make must be accepted by all. It interprets the constitution and preserves it. 16 Where a case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution either certified by the High Court or being satisfied by the Supreme Court itself, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court for interpretation of the question of law raised. The Supreme Court s interpretation so as to Art.131 is ambiguous in nature. The explanation so as to what the word state and union should be clear in its entirety. The essence of the article is with respect to the judge s interpretation of the law. TO EXPLAIN THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE LAW 13 AIR 2001 SC (2002) 2 SCC 507: AIR 2002 SC M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, pg. 226 (2011) 16 KEITH E. WHITTINGTON, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: TEXTUAL MEANING, ORIGINAL INTENT, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW, pg.223 (1999) 4 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

5 Justice Felix Frankfurter once said of the U.S. Supreme Court, India s Supreme Court too is a is a very special kind of court. It is special because it acts as a final court of appeal. It is special because its decisions are determinative; its pronouncements constitute the law of the land. And it is very special because under our political structure, the court acts as the ultimate arbiter on disputes concerning any interpretation of the Constitution. However, in recent times, especially over the last two decades or so, the court s ability to remain special, to retain its allure, has somewhat been thwarted by the enormity of its burden. 17 As of September 2009, there were no less than 53,221 cases pending before the Supreme Court. Many would say that the writing was on the wall as early as in the 1970s. Arrears in the Supreme Court had leaped from 680 cases in 1950 to over 100,000 by The pendency of cases came down to 19,000 in 1997 due, in large part, to the manner in which petitions and interlocutory applications came to be numbered together. 18 There has, however, been a worrying 150 per cent increase in total pendency between 1997 and This calls for a reassessment of the normative and constitutionally mandated role of the Apex Court. 19 A cursory glance at the Supreme Court's Practice and Procedure Handbook 20 will reveal how far the court has strayed from its original character as a Constitutional Court and gradually converted itself into a mere court of appeal which has sought to correct every error it finds in the decisions of the 21 High Courts and numerous Tribunals from which appeals lie to it. 21 So as to remove the ambiguities in the meaning of the parties mentioned in the law, the law can be elaborated with the meanings of the word state and other parties. This would make it much easier for the law makers, judges, lawyers and the laymen to understand so as to what is the essence of the law without any personal interpretations of each which may not be in sync with each of them. This results in the wrong interpretations which lead to fallacious conclusions made by each of the parties. 17 Suhrith Parthasarathy, Not a court of everyday appeals, THE HINDU, OCTOBER 18, LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 125 TH REPORT ON THE SUPREME COURT- A FRESH LOOK, 125 th report, V.R. JAYADEVAN, JUDICIAL CREATIVITY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, pg (2012) 20 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: A HANDBOOK OF INFROMATION (3 rd ed. 2010) 21 DR. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION pg.319(21 st ed. 2013) 5 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.