The State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in its latest decision held that State Legislature cannot make law which takes away the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court passed its decision in H.S Yadav vs Shakuntala Devi Prasad (Civil Appeal No.  5153/2019) dated 15.10.2019.

Challenge:

Whether the State Legislature can enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India?

Fact:

The State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), under this Act, in the hierarchy of adjudicating authorities there is a Rent Controller and above that, a Rent Control Tribunal.  In terms of Section 7 of the Act the State can appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector, as Rent Controller with territorial jurisdiction to be specified by the Collector.  The Rent Control   Tribunal   is constituted   under   Section   6   of   the   Act.     This Tribunal has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Act provides for an appeal against the orders of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal. In words of Section 13 from any order of the Rent Controller an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal and in terms of Section 13(2), an appeal lies as a matter of right to the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Court first observed that the Tribunal has been constituted in exercise of the powers vested in the State Legislature under Article 323B of the Constitution of India which deals with tribunal for other matters as enumerated in clause 2.  Sub clause (h) of Clause (2) of the said Article empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute a tribunal to deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations.

Article   246   of   the   Constitution   specifically   provides   that Parliament   has   exclusive   powers   to   make   laws   in   respect   of matters   enumerated in   List   I (Union   List) of   the   Seventh Schedule. Entry 77, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution gives power to the Union in respect of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court.  This power cannot be exercised by the State Legislature.

Entry 65, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution clearly indicates that the State Legislature   has   no   power   to   enact   any   legislation   relating   to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court.   This power is specifically excluded.

Even   Entry   46, List III of the Seventh Schedule   makes   it   clear   that   as   far   as   the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised under the Concurrent List.

The powers with regard to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union and Parliament alone can enact a legislation in this regard. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is always there.  However, the State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.  That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have.

Referring to the precedence of L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, the Court observed that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.   The   High   Court   can   exercise   its   supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal.

An appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature.  Accordingly, Section 13(2) of the Act is struck down.