From the Archives (September 20, 1969): SC’s ruling on original jurisdiction

September 20, 2019 12:15 am | Updated September 22, 2019 10:14 pm IST

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the terms of Article 131 of the Constitution dealing with original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any dispute between the Union Government and a State Government excluded the idea of a private citizen, a firm or a corporation as a disputant either alone or even along with a State or with the Government of India “in the category of a party to the dispute”. Mr. Justice Mitter (who disposed of a number of connected miscellaneous petitions) held that nine suits – filed by the State of Bihar (as plaintiff) in the Supreme Court (under Article 131 of the Constitution) against the Union of India (as first defendant) and the Hindustan Steel Limited and the Indian and Iron Steel Limited (these two companies, as second defendant), in the suits concerned, claiming damages for alleged short delivery of iron and steel ordered by the plaintiff-State to the various sites in the State in connection with construction work of Gandak project – were not maintainable in the Supreme Court, as being outside the scope of Article 131. The Bench, which also included the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Hidayatullah, Mr. Justice Shah, Mr. Justice Ramaswamy and Mr. Justice Grover, therefore, said that “the plaints must be returned (to the State of Bihar) for purpose of presentation to courts having jurisdiction over the disputes”. It may be mentioned that, in the above suits, the Union of India was made a party as owner of Railways (who carried the goods to the various destinations) and the steel companies were made as parties as the consignors of goods concerned. In the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court said that a dispute by a State in which a private party was involved (either by itself or along with another State or Union Government, etc.), must be brought before a court, other than the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction over the case. The Court also said that “a body like the Hindustan Steel Limited cannot be considered to be a State” for the purpose of Article 131 of the Constitution.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.