Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. (2019)

Introduction 

This landmark Constitution Bench judgment addressed the constitutional validity of state legislation providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from subordinate tribunals. The case arose from Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which provided for statutory appeals directly to the Supreme Court from orders of the Rent Control Tribunal, bypassing the High Court. The judgment definitively settled the question of legislative competence regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and reinforced the federal distribution of powers under the Constitution. 

Facts of the Case 

• The appellant-tenant was evicted by the Rent Control Authority under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, on an application filed by the respondent-landlord. 
• The Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur confirmed the eviction order, and the appellant filed an appeal directly to the Supreme Court under Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. 
• Section 13(2) of the Act provided that "Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall lie with the Supreme Court," creating a direct statutory right of appeal. 
• The Supreme Court expressed serious doubts about the maintainability of the appeal, questioning the legislative competence of Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact such a provision. 
• The Rent Control Act had been reserved by the Governor and received Presidential assent under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. 

Issues 

• Whether Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from Rent Control Tribunal orders, is ultra vires the Constitution of India? 
• Whether the Chhattisgarh State Legislature possessed legislative competence to enact a provision conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court? 
• Whether Presidential assent to a state law can validate provisions that exceed the legislative competence of the State Legislature? 
• Whether Article 138(2) read with Article 200 of the Constitution enables State Legislatures to confer appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court through Presidential assent? 

Court's Observations 

• Entry 77 of List I (Union List) confers exclusive power on Parliament to legislate regarding "Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court," while Entries 65 and 46 of State and Concurrent Lists expressly exclude the Supreme Court from state legislative competence. 
• Presidential assent cannot and does not validate an enactment that exceeds the legislative powers of the State Legislature, nor can it validate a statutory provision that renders express constitutional provisions nugatory. 
• Article 138(2) requires both a "special agreement" between the Government of India and State Government AND a Parliamentary law providing for exercise of such jurisdiction - mere Presidential assent does not constitute a "special agreement." 
• Section 13(2) creates a mandatory statutory right of appeal distinct from the discretionary special leave jurisdiction under Article 136, thereby impermissibly expanding Supreme Court jurisdiction beyond constitutional provisions. 
• The power under Article 136 is discretionary and supervisory, not a regular appellate jurisdiction that can be confused with statutory appeals - Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to interfere in appropriate cases despite other appeal provisions. 
• State Legislatures can affect High Court jurisdiction (except under Articles 226-227 which are basic features), but cannot enact laws touching Supreme Court jurisdiction, which is exclusively within Parliament's domain. 
• The constitutional scheme demonstrates a clear separation: Union Parliament has exclusive competence over Supreme Court matters, while State Legislatures can only legislate regarding courts "except the Supreme Court."