Explained | Scope Of Article 131 Of Indian Constitution As Interpreted By Supreme Court In West Bengal's Suit Against Centre

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 WaterTo 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 ...

Explained | Scope Of Article 131 Of Indian Constitution As Interpreted By Supreme Court In West Bengal's Suit Against Centre

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags