State Legislature Cannot Create a Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court: Chhattisgarh Rent Act Provision Struck Down

A tenant appealed directly to the Supreme Court under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act against a Rent Control Tribunal order of 1 December 2015 upholding his eviction (opening paragraph). A Bench doubted on 18.4.2016 whether a State could create such an appeal and issued notice to the Attorney General; another Bench then referred the question to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) (paras 3-5). The tenant argued that the Act had received the President's assent and only extended the Article 136 power (paras 8-25).

The State could legislate on landlords and tenants under Entry 18 of the State List and set up rent tribunals under Article 323B, but a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is not ancillary to that power (paras 46-49). Only Parliament, under Entry 77 of the Union List, can legislate on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and Entries 64 and 65 of the State List and 46 of the Concurrent List expressly exclude it (paras 54, 73). Article 136 gives a discretionary power, not a right of appeal, whereas a statutory appeal is a continuation of the proceedings that the Court must rehear (paras 57-58, 62, 79). Presidential assent cures repugnancy with a Central law only where the State is otherwise competent; it cannot validate a law beyond its legislative power (para 76). The second proviso to Article 200, on Bills derogating from High Court powers, was not attracted, as the provision took nothing from the High Court (para 69). Presidential assent is not a 'special agreement' under Article 138(2) (paras 81-82). The Court agreed with H.S. Yadav, which had struck down the same provision (para 84).