Section 13(2) of Rent Control Act declared ultra vires for granting statutory second appeal rights to Supreme Court

The SC held that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act is ultra vires the Constitution and declared it null and void. The provision purported to confer a right of statutory second appeal to the SC, which exceeded the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The Court ruled that State Legislatures cannot enact laws providing statutory appeals to the SC, as this violates constitutional principles. Article 138(2) was not applicable since no special agreement existed between the Government of India and State Government, and Parliament had not enacted enabling legislation. The HC's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remains available but cannot serve as an alternative appellate forum.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act.
2. Constitutionality of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act.
3. Interpretation of Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution of India.
4. Impact of Presidential assent on legislative competence.
5. Scope of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Issue 1: Legislative Competence of Chhattisgarh State Legislature to Enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act

The primary issue was whether the Chhattisgarh State Legislature had the legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, which provided for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. The Court examined the relevant entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, specifically Entry 77 of List I (Union List), Entry 65 of List II (State List), and Entry 46 of List III (Concurrent List). It was determined that Entry 77 confers exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament to legislate on the constitution, organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court. Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Therefore, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature exceeded its legislative powers by enacting Section 13(2).

Issue 2: Constitutionality of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act

The Court held that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, which allowed for direct appeals to the Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. The Constitution does not provide for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from orders of a Tribunal constituted under a State law. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and powers are derived from Articles 131 to 145 of the Constitution, and any expansion of this jurisdiction must be legislated by Parliament, not a State Legislature. The Court concluded that Section 13(2) was beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature and thus ultra vires the Constitution.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution of India

The Court examined the arguments regarding Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution. Article 138(2) allows for the Supreme Court to have further jurisdiction and powers if both the Government of India and the Government of a State agree, and if Parliament enacts a law to that effect. The Court clarified that a special agreement under Article 138(2) requires an independent agreement between the Government of India and the State Government, not just Presidential assent. Article 200 requires the Governor to reserve certain Bills for the President’s consideration if they derogate from the powers of the High Court. However, Presidential assent does not validate a law that is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

Issue 4: Impact of Presidential Assent on Legislative Competence

The Court emphasized that Presidential assent under Article 200 does not confer legislative competence on a State Legislature. Even if a Bill receives Presidential assent, it cannot validate an enactment that is beyond the legislative powers of the State Legislature. The Court cited the decision in K.K. Poonacha v. State of Karnataka, which held that Presidential assent does not grant immunity from challenges based on legislative competence or constitutional violations.

Issue 5: Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136

The Court distinguished between the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 and the statutory appellate jurisdiction. Article 136 confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, which is not equivalent to a regular statutory appeal. The power under Article 136 is exercised in cases involving substantial questions of law or public importance, and not as a matter of right. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, by providing for a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court, was found to be inconsistent with the discretionary nature of Article 136.

Conclusion:

The Court declared Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution, null, and void. The Chhattisgarh State Legislature lacked the competence to enact a provision that affected the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The judgment reaffirmed that legislative competence must be in accordance with the Constitution, and any expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction must be legislated by Parliament.

---