No Original Jurisdiction under Article 131 for Statutory Authorities

Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in Lucknow Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had dismissed a long-pending writ petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and had instead granted the parties liberty to invoke Article 131, holding that a statutory authority cannot maintain proceedings under that provision. 

What was the Background of Lucknow Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The LDA had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against the Union of India, the GOC-in-C, Central Command, and the Station Commander, Sub-Area, Cantonment, Lucknow. 
• The dispute concerned land on which the LDA had developed a colony and allotted plots and flats to beneficiaries. 
• According to the LDA, officers of the Union Government and defence establishments were interfering with the physical possession of the allottees, asserting that the land belonged to them. 
• After attempts to resolve the dispute between the concerned authorities failed, the High Court dismissed the LDA's writ petition by order dated September 19, 2023, holding that the dispute could not be decided in writ proceedings, and granted liberty to the parties to initiate proceedings under Article 131. 
• Aggrieved, the LDA approached the Supreme Court in appeal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the High Court's Characterisation of the Dispute: 
  The Court held that the High Court had fundamentally misconstrued the nature of the dispute, since the writ petition had been filed by the LDA itself and not by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
• On the Status of the LDA Under Article 12 and Article 131: 
  The Court noted that the LDA is a statutory body constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and that although it is a body corporate that may fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12, this does not make it a "State" for the purposes of Article 131. 
• On the Scope of the Expression "States" in Article 131: 
  The Court clarified that Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court only in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States, and that the expression "States" refers to the constituent States of the Union specified in the First Schedule, not every authority or instrumentality covered by the wider definition of "State" under Article 12. 
• On the Maintainability of the LDA's Recourse to Article 131: 
  The Court held that since the jurisdiction under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Article 131 can be invoked only by the States specified in the First Schedule, it was not open to the LDA, as an authority or instrumentality under Article 12, to approach the Court in its original jurisdiction. 
• On the High Court's Error and Delay: 
  The Court described the High Court's approach as a "gross error," noting that the writ petition had remained pending for nearly two and a half decades, and criticised its dismissal on the footing that the dispute was one between the Union and the State. 
• The Court remitted the writ petition to the Allahabad High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law and, given the considerable time elapsed since the petition's institution, requested the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously. 

What is Article 131 of the Constitution of India? 

Background & Purpose: 

Article 131 states the provisions relating to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: 

• Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute —  
  • Between the Government of India and one or more States; or 
  • Between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or 
  • Between two or more States, 

if the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. 

• Proviso: The said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. 

The term "States" in Article 131 has consistently been construed by courts as confined to the constituent States of the Union named in the First Schedule to the Constitution, and does not extend to statutory bodies, corporations, or other instrumentalities that qualify as "State" only under the broader definition in Article 12 for the purposes of enforcement of Part III fundamental rights. 

Case Laws: 

• The South India Corporation (P) Limited v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and Another (1963):  
  • The case arose in the context of Article 372 (Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation). 
  • The Court held that such provisions should be given a reasonable interpretation reflecting the intention of the Constitution's makers. 
• Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):  
  • The case concerned Article 309 (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State), which provides that a competent authority may make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service, and that such rules must be made "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" to be valid. 
• State of Rajasthan and Others v. Union of India and Others (1977):  
  • The Supreme Court held that Article 131 provides a forum for resolving disputes based on the existence or extent of a legal right.