2020 – Posted in: RSTV – Tags: article 131, Basic structure doctrine, Doctrine of colouring legislation, Doctrine of marrow and substance, Legislative competence, supreme court, Violation of rights, Violation of the Constitution

ARTICLE 131- SPECIAL POWERS OF SUPREME COURT

Introduction

Recently, the government of Kerala has filed a civil lawsuit before the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the Citizenship Law (CAA) of 2019, under the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Kerala asserts that the law violates the doctrine of basic structure, as it goes against the principle of equality, freedom and secularism which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

CAA 2019 grants Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim minorities, viz. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parisians and Christians who emigrated to India from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh on or before December 31, 2014.

Article 131: Original jurisdiction

The SC (as the Federal Court of India) has the initial jurisdiction to settle disputes which arise between different units of the Federation of India, such as:

Center and one or more states; or
Center and any state on one side and one or more states on the other; or
Two or more states

However, there are some points to consider:

The dispute must relate to a question of law or fact upon which the existence / extension of a right depends. Therefore, questions of a political nature are excluded.
Any claim filed with the Supreme Court by a private citizen against the Center or a State cannot be the subject of this article.
In addition, the provisions mentioned in this article are subject to other provisions of the Constitution, that is to say that if a remedy to a problem is provided for by another article of the Constitution, this article will not be available. . For example, in the event of water disputes between two or more States, the reparation of these conflicts is envisaged in article 262 of the Constitution and not in article 131.

Supreme Court’s stance on Article 131

There have been two contradictory judgments of the Supreme Court on the question of whether a state can file an original application under section 131 to challenge the constitutionality of a central law.

The first sentence reported in 2012 – State of Madhya Pradesh c. Union of India – held that states could not challenge a central law under section 131.

The second sentence, Jharkhand State vs. Bihar State, adopted the opposite opinion in 2015 and referred the question of the law to a larger bank of the Supreme Court for a final decision. The Kerala trial is based on the 2015 verdict.

However, in the case of the West Bengal government in 2017, the SC proclaimed that the state government could not seek any human rights remedies. The case was filed under article 32 of the Constitution which questions the validity of the ‘Aadhaar law’. The Court also held that “fundamental rights are accessible to individuals: citizens or non-citizens against the State and not for state entities”.

How is the request from the government of Kerala different from other requests?

The Kerala government’s written request is not the same as the other challenges expected to be heard in the High Court on January 22. Kerala presented its petition challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA law on the basis of section 131 of the Indian Constitution, so this is an original prosecution. The petition refers to the mechanism by which states can challenge the center.

Several applications have been filed against the CAA law before the Supreme Court. The superior court may hear the applications separately or consolidate them, but the request of the government of Kerala cannot be rejected with these applications.

Can the Supreme Court test the validity of law under Article 131?

Legislative competence: A law must be challenged before the Court if it exceeds the legislative competence of the drafter.

Jurisdiction can be verified by verifying that the object of the law is part of which of the three lists, the competent authority has framed the law in this regard.

Violation of rights: the Court can verify whether a particular law violates which type of rights, whether fundamental or constitutional rights.

Kerala’s request relates to the violation of fundamental rights and not to the legislative competence of Parliament. If someone had presented the law for violation of their fundamental rights, the SC would have investigated the legality of the problem.

Violation of the Constitution: the Court can prove a law if the Constitution is ultra-violet. In this regard, there are the following doctrines which have been developed by the SC over a period of time.

Basic structure doctrine: The basic structure doctrine designates the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot be changed/amended, as they form the basis of the Constitution on which its basic principles/existence rests.

Doctrine of marrow and substance: Marrow means “true nature” or “essence of something” and substance means “the most important or essential part of something”. According to the doctrine of marrow and substance, when the question arises as to whether a particular law relates to a particular question (mentioned in one list or another), the Court seeks the merits (that is, say the essential characteristic) of the question. Consequently, if the substance falls within the Union list, the fortuitous invasion of the central law on the subject mentioned in the list of States does not invalidate it.

Doctrine of colouring legislation: The literal meaning of coloring legislation is that, by virtue of the “color” or “appearance” of the power conferred for a particular purpose, the legislator cannot attempt to achieve another end which would not otherwise be competent to legislate It comes into play when a legislature does not have the power to legislate on a particular question, but indirectly.

Way to go

The Supreme Court must dismiss trials with political influence and focus on cases that raise crucial questions of law and constitutional validity.

State representatives should be receptive, open to their opinions when laws are enacted, rather than creating a subsequent situation.

The Center and the State must realize that federalism is a two-way street. They must respect the Constitution and each other.

States should refrain from defying central laws, as this could lead to the collapse of the constitutional mechanism.

ALSO, SEE RELATED RAJYA SABHA VIDEOS

You are on the Best Online IAS preparation platform. You are learning under experts.

We are present on Facebook- Diligent IAS, LinkedIn- Diligent IAS, YouTube- Diligent IAS, Instagram- Diligent IAS.

Get in touch with us.