Supreme Court Strikes Down Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act Provision: Limits State’s Power to Direct Appeals

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of H.S. Yadav v. Shakuntala Devi Parakh, where it struck down a provision of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, that allowed direct appeals from the Rent Control Tribunal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the State Legislature lacked the authority to enact such a provision and reaffirmed the jurisdiction of High Courts over such matters.

The case revolved around the question: “Whether the State Legislature can enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India?” The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 13(2) of the Act, which provided that appeals against the Rent Control Tribunal’s decisions would lie directly with the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant contended that the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, was validly enacted under Article 323B of the Constitution, which empowers State Legislatures to establish tribunals for matters related to rent and tenancy regulations. The appellant argued that since the Tribunal was legally constituted under this provision, an appeal mechanism directly to the Supreme Court was also valid.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, represented by the learned Attorney General, opposed the provision, arguing that the State Legislature does not have the power to prescribe appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. They referred to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, particularly Entry 77 of List I (Union List), which grants exclusive power to Parliament to regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

A bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant ruled that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act was unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the State. The Court observed:

“A bare reading of Entry 65 (List II) clearly indicates that the State Legislature has no power to enact any legislation relating to the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court. This power is specifically excluded.”

The Court further held that:

• Only Parliament has the authority to regulate the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.
• The State Legislature cannot bypass the High Court and provide direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
• The Tribunal, being a quasi-judicial body, remains subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 227.

Key Legal Principles Established

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

• The legislative competence of the State is restricted to courts below the Supreme Court (Entry 65 of List II).
• Exclusive jurisdiction over the Supreme Court is vested with Parliament (Entry 77 of List I).
• Any direct appeal to the Supreme Court without first approaching the High Court violates the constitutional hierarchy of courts.

Final Ruling

The Court struck down Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act and directed that any further appeals against Rent Control Tribunal decisions must first be made before the High Court under Article 227. The appeal in this case was dismissed, but the appellant was given the liberty to approach the High Court for redressal.

This judgment reinforces the principle that State Legislatures cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and upholds the hierarchical structure of appellate courts as outlined in the Constitution.

Petitioner Name: H.S. Yadav.
Respondent Name: Shakuntala Devi Parakh.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 15-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: H.S. Yadav vs Shakuntala Devi Para Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-10-2019.pdf