Before moving further, it is important to note that Article 131 deals with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states.
The Suit was filed against the Union under Article 131.
It is worth mentioning that in this case, Hindustan Steel Limited was impleaded as one of the parties in an Article 131 suit.
However, the Court found no reason as to why 'State', as given under Article 12, would be attracted for the purpose of Article 131.
This was regarding Article 309 of the Indian Constitution (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State).
While upholding the maintainability of an original Suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India over the suo motu registration of cases by the CBI in respect of offences committed within the State without its consent, the Supreme Court made certain pertinent observations regarding Article 131 of the Constitution.
Before moving further, it is important to note that Article 131 deals with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states. The Suit was filed against the Union under Article 131. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta fervently argued that the Suit against the Union was not maintainable as CBI was an independent legal person with a separate legal identity.
To bolster this, the solicitor heavily relied upon a Constitution bench judgment of the State of Rajasthan and Others v. Union of India and Others (1977) 3 SCC 592. To read a detailed background, click here.
However, the Court pointed out that even in the aforementioned case, it was emphasised that Article 131 provides a forum for resolving disputes based on the existence or extent of a legal right.
In the present case, the State argued that despite revocation of its consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 (Act), the CBI continued to register FIRs regarding offences that took place within the State. Terming this as an act of constitutional overreach, it added that the CBI was established by the Union.
Thus, the Court was of the opinion that it cannot be said that the State has not made any cause of action against the Union. Borrowing its words from the State of Rajasthan's case, the Court underscored that the legal right of the States consists in their immunity, in the sense of freedom from the power of the Union Government.
The Argument That CBI Cannot Be Equated To The Government Of India Holds No Water
To support its stance, the Union had also argued that even if it is assumed that CBI is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it cannot be equated to the term Government of India as given under Article 131 of the Constitution. For this, reliance was placed on several cases, including the case of the State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 67. It is worth mentioning that in this case, Hindustan Steel Limited was impleaded as one of the parties in an Article 131 suit. However, the Court found no reason as to why 'State', as given under Article 12, would be attracted for the purpose of Article 131.
"It will be noted that under Article 12, all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India are “States” for purposes of Part III, which defines and deals with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. The expression “the State” has the same meaning in Part IV of the Constitution under Article 36. No reason was shown as to why the enlarged definition of “State” given in Parts III and IV of the Constitution would be attracted to Article 131 of the Constitution and in our opinion a body like Hindustan Steel Limited cannot be considered to be “a State” for the purpose of Article 131 of the Constitution.”
Notwithstanding, the Court, in the present case, did not endorse this argument. After perusing the scheme of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Court opined that the Central Government is responsible for supervising DSPE (Special police force), except in corruption cases. The Court also noted that, as per Section 3 of the Act, the DSPE is entitled to investigate only those offences that the Central Government notifies. Furthermore, the Court also highlighted that though under Section 5 of the Act, powers of the DSPE can be extended to any State, the same is subject to the State Government's consent (Section 6 of the Act stipulates so).
Building on this, the Court categorically rejected the Union's argument and said that it “holds no water.” To quote from the judgment:
"In that view of the matter, we find that the contention of the learned Solicitor General that even if the CBI, being an independent agency, is considered to be an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it cannot be equated to the term Government of India as contemplated under Article 131 of the Constitution, in our view, holds no water."
Not only this, but the Court also held that the reliance placed upon the State of Bihar's case by the Union is also not "well placed". It said that every establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, and superintendence of the DSPE all vest with the Government of India.
"In our view, the CBI is an organ or a body which is established by and which is under the superintendence of the Government of India in view of the statutory scheme as enacted by the DSPE Act.," the Court concluded.
Jurisdiction Under Article 131 Would Only Be Subject To Article 262 Of The Indian Constitution
Imperatively, the Court also opined that merely because a party is involved in proceedings under Article 32(remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights), Article 136(Special Leave Petition), or even Article 226(power of High Courts to issue writ) of the Indian Constitution, it would not prevent that party from recourse to a remedy given under Article 131.
It is important to note that this Article reads, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute—”
In view of the term “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that since a similar issue is pending in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State under Article 136, the same matter cannot be raised in a suit under Article 131.
This was said in the context of a pending special leave petition before the Top Court against a 2021 Calcutta High Court verdict directing a CBI investigation into allegations of post-poll violence.
The Court relied upon a thread of precedents to interpret the above-mentioned phrase. This included the case of The South India Corporation (P) Limited v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and Another., 1963 INSC 163. The case pertained to Article 372 (Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation). The Court opined that these words should be given an interpretation that is reasonable and reflects the intention of the makers of the Constitution.
In this context, it was held that a pre-Constitution law made by a competent authority shall continue in force, provided the law does not contravene the “other provisions” of the Constitution.
Thereafter, the Court referred to another Constitution Bench's judgment of Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel., (1985) 3 SCC 398. This was regarding Article 309 of the Indian Constitution (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State). As per the proviso to this Article, any competent person can be directed to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service.
In view of this, the Court held that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 must be made subject to the provisions of this Constitution if they are to be valid.
After cementing this background, the Court observed that Article 131 confers a special jurisdiction to decide any question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
“A special provision has been made for deciding the question on which the existence or extent of a legal right between the special parties mentioned therein has been provided. Therefore, the words 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution' will have to be considered in that context.,” the Court added.
In view of this, the Court said that the jurisdiction under Article 131 would only be subject to a provision that talks about a dispute between the same parties, as mentioned in this provision. For this purpose, the Court cited Article 262 (Adjudication of Inter-States River Disputes).
“As such, ordinarily a dispute with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley between two States could have fallen under Article 131 of the Constitution but because of the words “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” used therein and in view of Article 262, such a dispute would not be entertainable under Article 131 of the Constitution.,” the Court said.
Moving on to other Articles, the Court said that while Article 32 provided a remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Article 136 provided for remedy by way of special leave to appeal before it. These are the general remedies available to “any party”., the Court said.
As such, the Court rejected Union's argument, saying that it “would not be in consonance with the constitutional scheme.”
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 4 of 2021
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 451
ClickHere To Read/Download Judgment
