Summary
The Court declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act unconstitutional because the State Legislature could not confer a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. Presidential assent did not cure legislative incompetence or satisfy Article 138(2). The Supreme Court’s discretionary special-leave power was distinct from a mandatory statutory appeal, while the High Court’s surviving judicial review remained supervisory rather than an alternative appeal.
Issues
- Whether the State Legislature could provide a direct statutory appeal from its Rent Control Tribunal to the Supreme Court.
- Whether Presidential assent or Article 138(2) validated the provision.
- What character of High Court review remained available.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2), Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011The direct statutory appeal provision exceeded State legislative competence and was declared null and void. (¶¶ 2, 49, 79, 84, 89)
- Articles 245–246; List I Entry 77; List II Entry 65; List III Entry 46, Constitution of IndiaLegislative authority over Supreme Court jurisdiction rested with Parliament; the State and Concurrent List jurisdiction entries expressly excluded that Court. (¶¶ 7, 36, 37, 38, 39, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 73, 74)
- Articles 138(2), 200 and 201, Constitution of IndiaPresidential assent could not cure lack of competence; further jurisdiction under Article 138(2) required a special intergovernmental agreement and parliamentary legislation. (¶¶ 7, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaDiscretionary special leave did not confer a party’s statutory right of appeal or authorize a State to create one. (¶¶ 7, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 79)
Held
- The State could regulate tenancy and rent and establish the tribunal system, but a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court was neither incidental to that power nor authorized by the constitutional distribution of legislative fields. (¶¶ 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- Article 136 is discretionary and differs from an ordinary statutory appeal requiring rehearing and correction of factual and legal errors. Section 13(2) imposed the latter obligation beyond the State’s competence. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 79)
- Assent does not validate legislation beyond the enacting legislature’s competence. Assent on ministerial advice is not the independent special agreement contemplated by Article 138(2), and the requisite parliamentary law was absent. (¶¶ 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83)
- The High Court’s protected jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 survived, but could not become an appellate forum merely because no statutory appeal existed. Intervention remained confined to the recognised judicial-review grounds rather than reassessment of evidence. (¶¶ 85, 86, 87, 88)
Result
The referred question was answered by declaring Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and of no effect. The underlying eviction merits were not determined in this judgment.