Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered the validity of Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which provided a direct appeal from the Rent Control Tribunal to the Supreme Court. The appellant, H.S. Yadav, had filed an appeal under this provision against an order of the Tribunal. The Court issued notice to the Advocate General of Chhattisgarh and the Attorney General for India to address whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact such a provision. The Court examined the constitutional scheme of legislative powers under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule. It noted that Entry 77 of List I (Union List) gives Parliament exclusive power over the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. Entry 65 of List II (State List) and Entry 46 of List III (Concurrent List) expressly exclude the Supreme Court from the jurisdiction and powers of courts that States or both legislatures can regulate. Therefore, the State Legislature cannot enact a law conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. The Court also observed that the Rent Control Tribunal, constituted under Article 323B, is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, as held in L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India. Consequently, the Court struck down Section 13(2) as ultra vires the Constitution and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, leaving it open to the appellant to approach the High Court under Article 227.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Appeal to Supreme Court - Entry 77 List I, Entry 65 List II, Entry 46 List III of Seventh Schedule - State Legislature cannot enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court as jurisdiction and powers of Supreme Court are exclusively within Parliament's domain - Held that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 is ultra vires the Constitution (Paras 9-14). B) Rent Control - Tribunal - Appeal - Section 13(2) Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 - Appeal from Rent Control Tribunal directly to Supreme Court - State Legislature lacks competence to provide such appeal - Section 13(2) struck down as illegal and beyond legislative competence (Paras 3-14). C) Constitutional Law - Tribunals - Article 323B - Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court - L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India - Tribunals constituted under Article 323B are subject to writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 - Held that High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over orders of Rent Control Tribunal (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Legislature can enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The provision was struck down. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- State Legislature cannot enact law providing appeal directly to Supreme Court
- Entry 77 List I and Entry 65 List II of Seventh Schedule
- Tribunals under Article 323B subject to High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227
