Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. 2019

CASE BRIEFING: Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

Case Title and Citation

Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr..

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3613 OF 2016 (WITH CA. NO. 10214 OF 2016 AND C.A. NO. 3051 OF 2017).

Facts

The appeal was filed purportedly under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (the Rent Control Act), challenging an order of the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur. The Tribunal’s order confirmed the eviction of the appellant-tenant as allowed by the Rent Control Authority under Section 12 of the Act. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides that an appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall lie with the Supreme Court. A previous Bench of the Supreme Court expressed serious doubts about the appeal’s maintainability, observing that the State of Chhattisgarh prima facie lacked legislative competence to enact a law providing for statutory appeals directly to the Supreme Court from a Tribunal’s order. The Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh argued that Section 13(2) was protected and enforceable because the Rent Control Act had received the assent of the President of India under Article 138(2) read with Article 200 of the Constitution. Due to the involvement of a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, the appeal was referred to a Constitution Bench.

Issue(s)

Whether Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which provides for a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal, is ultra vires the Constitution of India due to the lack of legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State legislature to enact such a provision.

Rule of Law

1. Legislative Competence (Article 246 and Seventh Schedule): Parliament has exclusive power to make laws regarding matters in the Union List (List I). The power of the State Legislature to make laws is limited to the State and must be subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Union List Entry 77): Only Parliament has the exclusive legislative competence to legislate with respect to the constitution, organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court.
3. Jurisdiction of Other Courts (State List Entry 65 & Concurrent List Entry 46): The State Legislature is enabled to legislate with respect to the jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, regarding matters in those lists. These entries expressly debar the State Legislature from legislating concerning the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
4. Presidential Assent (Article 201): The grant of assent by the President of India under Article 201 does not, in any manner, alter the extent of legislative competence of the State Legislature. Presidential assent cannot confer legislative competence or validate a statutory provision enacted in excess of the State Legislature’s powers or one that would render express provisions of the Constitution void.

Holding

Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void, and of no effect . The Court was in full agreement with the judgment in H. S. Yadav vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh which had previously struck down Section 13(2).

Reasoning

1. Exclusive Parliamentary Domain: The jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court fall exclusively under Entry 77 of the Union List. Since the State Legislature’s power is explicitly limited by Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, which exclude competence regarding the Supreme Court, the State Legislature lacks the competence to enact Section 13(2).
2. Not an Ancillary Power: While the State Legislature is competent to enact the Rent Control Act based on Entry 18 of the State List (regulating landlord/tenant relations and rent collection), Section 13(2), providing for direct appeal to the Supreme Court, is not ancillary or incidental to that legislative power.
3. Statutory Appeal vs. Article 136: The appellant’s contention that Section 13(2) was merely an extension of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 was rejected. Article 136 confers a discretionary power of special leave and does not create a right of appeal. In contrast, Section 13(2) purports to confer a right of statutory Second Appeal, which mandates the Supreme Court to consider the appeal, even in cases of concurrent findings of fact. This distinction shows that Section 13(2) attempts to legislate on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is beyond State competence.
4. Assent Does Not Cure Incompetence: Presidential assent under Article 201 does not cure the legislative incompetence of the State Legislature. The assent only cures repugnancy with an earlier Central Statute, assuming the State Legislature was otherwise competent to enact the law.
5. Article 138(2) Not Applicable: The argument that Presidential assent, given on the advice of the Council of Ministers, fulfilled the condition of a “special agreement” between the Government of India and the State Government required by Article 138(2) was rejected. A special agreement under Article 138(2) requires an independent agreement reached through deliberation and negotiation. Furthermore, Article 138(2) requires that Parliament must provide by law for the exercise of such jurisdiction, which it has not done.

Conclusion

The State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act because laws concerning the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament (Union List, Entry 77). Consequently, Section 13(2) is struck down as being ultra vires the Constitution.