Discuss the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.

Original Jurisdiction Under Article 131

Article 131 is the primary source of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, and it confines this jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, to disputes falling within a specific and narrow category. Article 131 provides that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between the Government of India and one or more States on one side and one or more other States on the other, or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question, whether of law or fact, on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The word "exclusive" is significant, since it means no other court in India, including a High Court, has jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute; only the Supreme Court can adjudicate it, and only in its original capacity as the court of first instance.

The proviso to Article 131 carves out an important exclusion, providing that this jurisdiction does not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or other similar instrument entered into before the commencement of the Constitution which continues in operation, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. Such pre-constitutional treaty disputes are instead reserved for reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143(2), which the Court is obliged to answer, rather than being litigated as an ordinary suit under Article 131.

Character of Disputes Under Article 131

The jurisdiction under Article 131 is confined strictly to disputes between government entities as such, in their capacity as constituent units of the Indian federation, and does not extend to disputes involving private citizens or corporations, even where a State Government might be involved as a party in some other capacity. The Supreme Court clarified the essential character of this jurisdiction in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, holding that Article 131 confers jurisdiction over disputes concerning the legal rights of the States and the Union inter se, arising out of their status as governmental entities within the federal structure, and that this jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to determine the legislative competence of Parliament in the abstract without a genuine dispute over legal rights, though the Court in that case upheld the validity of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 as within Parliament's competence while addressing the maintainability question.

The requirement that the dispute must involve a question on which "the existence or extent of a legal right depends" has been read to mean that a mere political disagreement or policy dispute between the Union and a State, without any accompanying legal right at stake, cannot be brought under Article 131. This distinction was reinforced in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court, in a suit filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the constitution of a commission of inquiry against its own Chief Minister, held by majority that the suit was maintainable under Article 131 since it raised genuine questions concerning the legal relationship and constitutional rights of the State vis-à-vis the Union, even though the underlying subject matter touched upon a politically sensitive controversy, illustrating that political sensitivity does not by itself defeat maintainability so long as an actual legal right is genuinely in dispute.

More recently, the scope of Article 131 was examined in the suit filed by the State of Chhattisgarh and other States against the Union concerning the National Investigation Agency Act and related federal encroachment concerns, and in the ongoing suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India relating to the continued registration and investigation of cases by the Central Bureau of Investigation despite withdrawal of the State's general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, where the Supreme Court rejected the Union's preliminary objection as to maintainability, holding that a genuine lis existed between the two governments regarding the legal question of whether the CBI could continue investigating within the State's territory after such withdrawal of consent, thereby confirming the continuing vitality of Article 131 as a forum for resolving live Centre-State legal friction.

Illustration

Suppose a dispute arises between the Union Government and a State Government over the interpretation of an inter-state river water agreement or over the legal entitlement to royalty payments on minerals extracted within the State's territory, where the very existence of the State's legal right to such royalty is disputed by the Union. Such a dispute would fall squarely within Article 131, since it involves a genuine question of legal right between the Union and a State acting in their governmental capacities, and the State would approach the Supreme Court directly as a suit, without any need to first litigate before any subordinate forum, since the Supreme Court's jurisdiction here is both exclusive and original.

Original Jurisdiction Under Article 32

A second and practically far more frequently invoked head of original jurisdiction arises under Article 32(1), which guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court directly by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III. Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. Unlike Article 131, this jurisdiction is available to any person, not merely to governmental entities, and unlike the appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132 to 136, it does not depend on any prior proceeding or certificate from a lower court; a petitioner can approach the Supreme Court as the court of first instance the moment a Fundamental Right is violated.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the special character of this jurisdiction. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the Court held that Article 32 itself guarantees a fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of the rights under Part III, and this right cannot be whittled down by requiring the petitioner to first exhaust alternative remedies before other forums, since the very language of Article 32 confers a directly enforceable guarantee, not merely a discretionary remedy. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Court expanded this jurisdiction procedurally by relaxing rules of locus standi and evidence, permitting any public-spirited person to move the Court on behalf of bonded labourers who could not approach the Court themselves, thereby developing the practice of epistolary and public interest litigation as a mode of invoking this original jurisdiction to protect Fundamental Rights of those unable to access the Court through conventional means.

Distinguishing Feature from Article 226

It is worth noting that Article 226 confers a broadly similar writ jurisdiction on the High Courts, but the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 is distinct in being itself a Fundamental Right, guaranteed and directly enforceable, whereas Article 226 is not so entrenched; a litigant may approach either forum for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, but only Article 32 carries the additional constitutional weight of being a right in itself rather than merely a remedial power.

Taken together, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 131 and 32 serves two very different but equally vital constitutional functions: Article 131 furnishes the exclusive forum for resolving genuine legal disputes between the constituent governmental units of the Indian federation, thereby preserving the integrity of Centre-State relations, while Article 32 stands as the individual citizen's direct and constitutionally guaranteed gateway to the highest court for the protection of Fundamental Rights, together making the Supreme Court not merely the final appellate authority but, in these specific and carefully bounded categories, the court of first and only resort in the Indian judicial system.