Constitution of India 1950-Art. 131-Scope of Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1932 to inquire into allegations of corruption, favouritism and nepotism against the Chief Minister of a State Suit filed by the State under Art. 131-If maintainable Central Government, if could constitute a Commission of Inquiry against sitting Chief Minister and Ministers of the State Government-Action of Central Government, if destructive of federal structure of the Constitution and distribution of powers between the Centre and the States-If subverts the principle of collective responsibility under which Ministers are responsible only to the State Legislature-If violates privileges of the members of the Assembly under Art. 194(3).

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 validity Section 3-Scope of If 5. 3 ultra vires Part Xl of the Constitution Inquiry-Purpose and scope of Constitution-Inquiry- "Definite matter of public importance" meaning of.

Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in any dispute (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

A memorandum alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka was submitted to the Union Home Minister by certain opposition members of the State Assembly. The Chief Minister repelled the allegations as frivolous and politically motivated. By a notification dated May 18, 1977 the State Government appointed under 8. 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, a one man com- mission presided over by a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court for inquiring into the allegations specified in the notification. By notification dated May 23, 1977, the Government of India appointed under 3. 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, a one man commission presided over by a retired judge of the Supreme Court to enquire into the charges made against the Chief Minister excluding "any matter covered by the notification of the Government of Karnataka". Thereupon, the State Government filed in this Court a suit under Art. 131 of the Constitution. On the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by this Court. These were: (1) Is the suit maintainable? (2) Is the impugned notification ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under s. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 19527 (3) Even if the notification falls within sec. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is the section itself unconstitutional?

It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that (1) the Central Government has no jurisdiction or authority to constitute the Commission of Inquiry in the purported exercise of its powers under the Act; (2) the action of the Central Government in appointing the Commission against the Ministers of the State Government is destructive of the federal structure of the Constitution and the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States; (3) under the Cabinet system of government the Council of Ministers is responsible to the Legislature for all its actions and the inquiry ordered by the Central Government against the State Ministers, while they are in office would subvert the principle of collective responsibility of Ministers to the Legislature; (4) by virtue of Art 194(3) it is the privilege of the Assembly (and not of any other body) to appoint a Committee for inquiring into the conduct of any of its members; (5) interpretation of s. 3 of the 1952 Act in such a way as to empower the Central Government to appoint a Commission for inquiring into matters relating to any of the entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would make s. 3 itself ultra vires the provisions of Part XI of the Constitution; and (6) since on the basis of the report the Central Government cannot take any action against the Ministers of the State Government such a Commission cannot serve any useful purpose.

On the other hand, the defendant (Central Government) raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the appointment of such a Commission does not affect any legal right of the State; and (2) also that the Central Government is competent to constitute a Com- mission to inquire into a definite matter of public importance, (3) that, further- more, its notification does not cover any of the matters mentioned in the State Government's notification, namely, the conduct of Ministers of the State Government.