Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India: Original Exclusive Jurisdiction and Original Concurrent Jurisdiction under Articles 71, 131, 32 and 226
The Supreme Court of India occupies the highest position in the Indian judicial system and serves as the guardian of the Constitution, protector of fundamental rights, and final interpreter of law. The Constitution of India confers extensive powers and jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to ensure constitutional governance, federal balance, and rule of law. Among the different types of jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court, the original jurisdiction occupies a place of special importance.
Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a matter in the first instance rather than through appeal. The Supreme Court exercises both exclusive original jurisdiction and concurrent original jurisdiction under various constitutional provisions.
Articles 71 and 131 deal with the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain constitutional and federal disputes, while Article 32 read with Article 226 establishes concurrent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in matters relating to enforcement of fundamental rights.
The concept of original jurisdiction reflects the constitutional importance of the Supreme Court as a federal court and constitutional court.
Article 131 of the Constitution of India grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in disputes involving the Union and the States.
Article 131 provides that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes:
between the Government of India and one or more States,
between the Government of India and one or more States on one side and one or more States on the other side,
and between two or more States.
The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
This jurisdiction is called “exclusive” because no other court can entertain such disputes.
The purpose of Article 131 is to preserve the federal structure of the Constitution and provide an impartial judicial forum for resolving disputes between units of the federation.
India follows a federal system in which powers are divided between the Union and the States. Conflicts may arise regarding legislative competence, executive authority, financial distribution, water disputes, territorial claims, taxation, and constitutional powers. Article 131 ensures peaceful constitutional resolution of such disputes through judicial adjudication rather than political confrontation.
The jurisdiction under Article 131 is limited to legal disputes involving enforceable rights. Political disputes or purely advisory disagreements cannot ordinarily be brought under this provision. The Supreme Court has clarified that disputes involving political questions without legal rights do not fall within Article 131. Several important disputes between States and the Union have been decided under Article 131.
For example, disputes regarding river water sharing, taxation powers, constitutional validity of central laws affecting States, and federal financial issues have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 131 and emphasized its federal significance. The Court observed that Article 131 is intended to maintain constitutional balance between the Union and the States.
The Court has also clarified that private parties cannot invoke Article 131 because the jurisdiction is confined to governments and constituent units of the federation. Article 131 therefore establishes the Supreme Court as a federal court responsible for preserving constitutional equilibrium within the Indian Union.
Another important aspect of original jurisdiction relates to Article 71. Article 71 empowers the Supreme Court to decide disputes relating to the election of the President and Vice-President of India. The Constitution provides that all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of the President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme Court in such matters is final. This jurisdiction is exclusive because no other court possesses authority to adjudicate election disputes relating to these highest constitutional offices. The significance of Article 71 lies in ensuring impartiality, finality, and constitutional integrity in elections to the offices of President and Vice-President.
The election of the President and Vice-President involves members of Parliament and State Legislatures and carries national constitutional importance. Therefore, the Constitution entrusts adjudication of disputes exclusively to the Supreme Court.
Article 71 also provides that acts performed by a President or Vice-President before election is declared void shall not become invalid merely because the election is subsequently set aside. This provision protects continuity and stability of constitutional governance. Apart from exclusive original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also exercises concurrent original jurisdiction with High Courts in matters concerning enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution because it provides constitutional remedies against violation of fundamental rights.
Under Article 32, any person whose fundamental rights are violated may directly approach the Supreme Court seeking appropriate relief. The Supreme Court may issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto for enforcement of rights. Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts. Under Article 226, every High Court has power to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also “for any other purpose.”
This makes the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 broader in scope than Article 32. The concurrent jurisdiction arises because both the Supreme Court and High Courts can entertain petitions relating to enforcement of fundamental rights. A person whose rights are violated may therefore approach either the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226.
This concurrent arrangement strengthens protection of constitutional rights by providing multiple judicial forums. The writ jurisdiction forms one of the most powerful constitutional mechanisms for safeguarding civil liberties and rule of law. The five principal writs have distinct purposes. The writ of Habeas Corpus protects personal liberty by requiring production of a detained person before the court.
The writ of Mandamus directs a public authority to perform a legal duty.
The writ of Prohibition prevents a lower court or tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction.
The writ of Certiorari quashes unlawful orders of lower courts or authorities.
The writ of Quo Warranto challenges illegal occupation of public office.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of writ jurisdiction in preserving constitutional democracy.
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court expanded interpretation of fundamental rights through writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 32 itself constitutes a fundamental right. Therefore, Parliament cannot ordinarily curtail access to the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
However, the Supreme Court has often advised litigants to first approach High Courts under Article 226 because High Courts are geographically accessible and possess wider jurisdiction.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of High Courts as constitutional courts within the federal structure. The Court held that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded. The concurrent writ jurisdiction reflects cooperative functioning between the Supreme Court and High Courts in protecting constitutional rights.
High Courts play a crucial role because they are more accessible to ordinary citizens and can address local issues effectively. At the same time, the Supreme Court acts as the ultimate constitutional authority ensuring uniform interpretation of fundamental rights across the country. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation and expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The Supreme Court relaxed procedural technicalities and allowed social activists, journalists, lawyers, and public-spirited citizens to approach the Court on behalf of disadvantaged groups. This development transformed Article 32 into an instrument of social justice and constitutional activism.
The Court used writ jurisdiction to address issues relating to bonded labour, prison reforms, environmental protection, custodial violence, gender justice, corruption, and rights of marginalized communities. Thus, original jurisdiction became not merely a technical constitutional provision but an important mechanism for promoting social transformation and constitutional governance.
However, concerns have also arisen regarding increasing burden of litigation and judicial overreach.
The large number of writ petitions directly filed before the Supreme Court sometimes affects efficiency and delays adjudication. Consequently, the Court frequently encourages litigants to first approach High Courts under Article 226. Despite these challenges, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court remains fundamental to India’s constitutional framework. It preserves federal balance, protects democratic institutions, safeguards fundamental rights, and ensures constitutional supremacy.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India exercises both exclusive original jurisdiction and concurrent original jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. Articles 71 and 131 confer exclusive jurisdiction in disputes relating to Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections and federal disputes between the Union and States. Article 32 read with Article 226 establishes concurrent writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights. Through these provisions, the Supreme Court functions as a federal court, constitutional protector, and guardian of civil liberties. Judicial decisions such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and State of Karnataka v. Union of India have further clarified and strengthened these constitutional powers. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court therefore remains an essential feature of constitutional governance, judicial review, and protection of democracy in India.
Leave a Reply