RAJENDRA DIWAN versus PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.

[2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089

RAJENDRA DIWAN

PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 3613 of 2016)

DECEMBER 10, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]

Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – s. 13(2) – Appealagainst an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to Supreme Court –Validity of s.13(2) – Held: On conjoint reading of Art. 323B andArts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the SeventhSchedule, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature was competent to enactthe Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for theadjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent bythe Rent Controller, and creates Tribunal to decide appeals fromorders of the Rent Controller – However, Entry 64 of the State Listand Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the StateLegislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court – Also Art. 200 cannot validate an ultra viresenactment which the concerned Legislature lacked competence toenact – Thus, s. 13(2) providing for direct appeal to the SupremeCourt from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, is notancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh StateLegislature to enact Rent Control Act, which provides forappellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent bya Tribunal – In enacting s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, theChhattisgarh State Legislature overtly transgressed the limits of itslegislative power – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patentlylacked competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdictionof the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh – Thus, s.13(2) is declared ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and ofno effect – Constitution of India – Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule.

Constitution of India – Vires of any enactment –Consideration of – Held: Is to be seen, whether looking at thelegislation as whole, it can be said to be legislation,

Asubstantially with respect to any of the matters, with regard to whichthe Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Articleof the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in theSeventh Schedule thereto – Once it is held that it is so, thelegislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to allancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to beBcomprehended in that arena – Furthermore, while the widestamplitude should be given to the language used in one entry, everyattempt has to be made to harmonize its contents with those of otherEntries, so that the latter may not be rendered nugatory –Interpretation of Statutes.C

Constitution of India – Art. 245 – Laws made by Parliamentand by the Legislature of States – Power to legislate – Held: Boththe Union legislature and the State Legislature derive their powerto legislate from Art. 245 – Legislature of State may only makelaws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament mayDmake laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India –There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State lawswith extra-territorial operation, similar to Art. 245(2) whichexpressly saves Union laws with extra-territorial operation, enactedby Parliament – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lackscompetence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of theESupreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh.Constitution of India – Art. 138 – Enlargement of thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Term ‘special agreement’ u/Art 138(2) – Held: Art. 138(2) provides that the Supreme Courtshall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to anyFmatter as the Government of India and the Government of any Statemay by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides forthe exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court– Special agreement, means, an independent agreement arrived atbetween the Government of India and the Government of Statethrough deliberations and negotiations and not just an approvalGof legislation by the President on the aid and advice of the Councilof Ministers – In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise furtherjurisdiction pursuant to special agreement between theGovernment of India and the State Government on any particularissue, provided Parliament by law provides for the exercise of suchHjurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.

Constitution of India – Art. 200, second proviso – Assent toBills – Requirement of – Held: Art. 200 requires Bills passed bythe Legislative Assembly of State, or in case of State having aLegislative Council, bill passed by both the houses of theLegislature of the State, to be presented to the Governor for assent– Such Bills become law on receipt of assent of the Governor –Second proviso to Art. 200, prohibits the Governor from assentingto Bill, which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it becamelaw, so derogate from the powers of the High Court, as toendanger the position which the High Court is, by the Constitution,design to fill – Governor is obliged to reserve such bill for theconsideration of the President – Presidential assent is imperativein the case of law enacted by State Legislature, which wouldderogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger theposition which that Court is, by the Constitution, designed to fill –Second proviso to Art. 200 is not attracted in the case of s. 13(2)of the Rent Control Act, since it does not derogate from any powerof the High Court – Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.

Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Power ofsuperintendence of the High Court under – Held: Power ofsuperintendence conferred by Art. 227 is, supervisory and notappellate – This power is to be exercised sparingly, to keepsubordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority– High Court interferes only when there is grave miscarriage ofjustice or flagrant violation of law – Interference is restricted tocases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision;perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation ofprinciples of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpationof powers – High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze theevidence and/or materials on record – Exercise of writ jurisdictionby the High Court to test decision of the Rent Control Tribunalwould depend on the facts and circumstances of the case – Writjurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into analternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provisionof appeal in the eye of law.

Answering the question referred, the Court

HELD: 1. The State Legislature lacked legislativecompetence to enact Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent

AControl Act, 2011. Therefore, Section 13(2) of the Rent ControlAct is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India, null andvoid and of no effect. [Para 89] [1127-E]

L Chandrakumar v. Union of India and others AIR(1997) SC 125 – followed.

H.S. Yadav v. Shakuntala Devi Parakh (2019) 10SCC 265 – relied on.

2. Art. 246 of the Constitution, which distributes legislativepowers between the Union Legislature and the State Legislature,confers exclusive power to Parliament to make laws in respectCof the matters specified in List I in the Seventh Schedule, thatis, the Union List. The Union Parliament also has, subject toClause (3) of Art. 246, the power to make laws with respect toany of the matters enumerated in List III in the SeventhSchedule, that is, the Concurrent List. The State Legislature hasDexclusive power to make laws with respect to mattersenumerated in the State List, subject to Clauses (1) and (2) ofArt. 246. Along with the Union Legislature, the State Legislatureis also competent to enact laws in respect of the mattersenumerated in the Concurrent List, subject to the provisionsof Article 246(1). [Para 37, 38] [1117-E-G]

3.1 The relevant entries in the instant matter are, Entry77 of the Union List, Entries 18 and 65 of the State List andEntry 46 of the Concurrent List. Entry 18 of the State Listenables the State Legislature to enact law with respect to land,including rights in and over land, land tenures including relationFof landlord and tenant and the collection of rent. The StateLegislature being clothed with power to enact law in respect ofland tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant andthe collection of rent, it had legislative competence to enact theRent Control Act, in so far as the same regulates the relationshipGof landlord and tenant and the collection of rent. [Para 39, 42][1117-H; 1118-A-H; 1119-A]

3.2 Entry 18 of the State List, which only enables the StateLegislature to legislate with regard to land, land tenures,landlord tenant relationship, collection of rents etc. does notHenable the State Legislature to enact law conferring appellate

jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in respect of orders passedby an Appellate Rent Control Tribunal, constituted under statelaw. [Para 53] [1121-A-B]

3.3 In view of Entry 77 of the Union List, only Parliamenthas the legislative competence to legislate with respect to theconstitution, organization, jurisdiction or powers of the SupremeCourt. Entry 64 of the State List and Entry 46 of the ConcurrentList enable the State Legislature to enact law with respect tothe jurisdiction and powers of Courts except the Supreme Court.In other words, the said Entries expressly debar the StateLegislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Court. [Para 54] [1121-B-C]

4.1 The Supreme Court has been established under Article124 of the Constitution of India and derives its jurisdiction andpowers from Articles 131 to 145 thereof. There is no provisionin the Constitution which provides for direct appeal to theSupreme Court, from an order of Tribunal constituted underany law enacted by State Legislature. [Para 40] [1118-E]

4.2 Article 262(2) of the Constitution which enablesParliament to enact law abrogating the power of the SupremeCourt to adjudicate the disputes referred to in Article 262(1),and Article 348 of the Constitution, demonstrate that all matterspertaining to the Supreme Court are exclusively within thelegislative domain of Union Parliament. [Para 41] [1118-F-G]

5.1 Article 323B (3)(d) provides that law made underArticle 323B (1) may exclude the jurisdiction of all courts exceptthe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, withrespect to all or any of the matters falling within the jurisdictionof the said tribunals. Article 323B does not enable StateLegislature to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court byenacting provision for further statutory appeal to the SupremeCourt from an order of an Appellate Tribunal. [Para 55] [1121-D]

5.2 On conjoint reading of Article 323B and Articles 245and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule,there can be no doubt that the State Legislature was competentto enact law to provide for adjudication and trial of all disputes,

Acomplaints and offences relating to tenancy and rent, by aTribunal. The Chhattisgarh State Legislature was thus competentto enact the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides forthe adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rentby the Rent Controller, and creates Tribunal to decide appealsfrom orders of the Rent Controller. [Para 46, 47] [1119-F-G]B

6. When the question of vires of any enactment isconsidered, it is to be seen, whether looking at the legislationas whole, it can be said to be legislation, substantially withrespect to any of the matters, with regard to which theCLegislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Articleof the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List inthe Seventh Schedule thereto. Once it is held that it is so, thelegislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to allancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to becomprehended in that arena. [Para 48] [1119-H; 1120-A-B]DUnited Provinces v. Atika Begum AIR 1941 FC 16 (25)– referred to.

7.1 Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, providing fordirect appeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed by theERent Control Tribunal, is not ancillary or incidental to the powerof the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact Rent ControlAct, which provides for appellate adjudication of appeals relatingto tenancy and rent by Tribunal. In enacting Section 13(2) ofthe Rent Control Act, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature hasovertly transgressed the limits of its legislative power. [Para 49]F

[1120-C]

7.2 While the widest amplitude should be given to thelanguage used in one entry, every attempt has to be made toharmonize its contents with those of other Entries, so that thelatter may not be rendered nugatory. Both the Union legislatureGand the State Legislature derive their power to legislate fromArticle 245 of the Constitution of India. It is axiomatic that thelegislature of State may only make laws for the whole or anypart of the State, while Parliament may make laws for the wholeor any part of the territory of India. There is no provision in theHConstitution which saves State laws with extra-territorial

operation, similar to Article 245(2) which expressly saves Unionlaws with extra-territorial operation, enacted by Parliament. TheChhattisgarh State Legislature, thus, patently lacks competenceto enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt, outside the State of Chhattisgarh. [Para 50, 51] [1120-D-F]

7.3 The submission that Section 13(2) of the Rent ControlAct does not confer on the Supreme Court, jurisdiction it didnot already possess, but is only incidental to and/or extensionof its power under Article 136, is not sustainable in law. [Para56] [1121-E]

8.1 Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the SupremeCourt does not act as regular court of appeal. The power ofthe Supreme Court under Article 136 is not to be confused withthe appellate power ordinarily exercised by Appellate Courts andTribunals under specific statutes. Article 136 does not confer aright of appeal on any party, but confers discretionary poweron the Supreme Court to interfere in appropriate cases. Thispower can be exercised in spite of other provisions for appealcontained in the Constitution, or any other law. Conclusivenessor finality given by statute to decision of Court or Tribunal,cannot deter the Supreme Court from exercising this jurisdictionunder Article 136 of the Constitution. Appellate jurisdiction isnot exercised when statute gives finality to decision of theCourt or Tribunal. [Para 57-59] [1121-F-H; 1122-A-B]

N. Natarajan v. B. K. Subba Rao (2003) 2 SCC 76 ;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65 – referredto.

8.2 Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, theSupreme Court entertains appeals by special leave, wheresubstantial questions of law or questions of public importanceare involved. Where there is any uncertainty in the law, theSupreme Court, in its discretion, settles the law. The SupremeCourt does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings offact under Article 136. If the concurrent findings are based onaccepted oral or documentary evidence, there is no interferenceunder Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 60] [1122-C]

A8.3 While exercising power under Article 136 of theConstitution, the Supreme Court does not re-appreciateevidence which has been appreciated by the Trial Court and theHigh Courts, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. It is onlywhere the High Court has completely missed the real pointrequiring adjudication or has missed or ignored the relevantBmaterial, would the Supreme Court be justified in getting intoevidence for the purpose of preventing grave injustice to party.[Para 61] [1122-D-E]

8.4 An appeal, on the other hand, is continuation of theoriginal proceedings. Where there is statutory appeal from anCappellate order of the Tribunal, the appellate court is obliged torehear the case, re-appreciate and re-analyze the evidence onrecord, adjudicate the correctness of the order impugned andcorrect errors both of fact and of law, that the Tribunal may havemade. [Para 62] [1122-F]D9.1 Article 200 of the Constitution relating to the passageof Bills except money Bills, requires Bills passed by theLegislative Assembly of State, or in case of State having aLegislative Council, bill passed by both the houses of theLegislature of the State, to be presented to the Governor forEassent. Such Bills become law on receipt of assent of theGovernor. [Para 63] [1122-G]

9.2 The second proviso to Article 200, of the Constitutionprohibits the Governor from assenting to Bill, which in theopinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate fromFthe powers of the High Court, as to endanger the position whichthe High Court is, by the Constitution of India, design to fill.The Governor is obliged to reserve such bill for theconsideration of the President. Presidential assent is imperativein the case of law enacted by State Legislature, which wouldderogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger theGposition which that Court is, by the Constitution, designed tofill. [Para 68, 65] [1123-B-F]

9.3 The second proviso to Article 200 is not attracted inthe case of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, since it doesnot derogate from any power of the High Court. It is well settledHthat there is no inherent right of appeal. Right of appeal is

conferred by Statute. Statute is not invalid only because it hasno provision of appeal to the High Court. [Para 69] [1123-G-H]

10.1 The amplitude of power conferred by Clauses 1 and2 of Article 246, makes the Parliament competent to make lawenlarging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect toany of the matters enumerated in List I and III, even thoughsuch enlargement may not be contemplated by the variousArticles of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. By virtueof the power conferred by Article 248 of the Constitution ofIndia, the Parliament has, subject to Article 246 of theConstitution, exclusive power to make any law with respect toany matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List.The residuary power of legislation thus rests with Parliament.[Para 71, 72] [1124-B-C]

10.2 In view of Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 ofthe Concurrent List, the State Legislature can enact law whichaffects the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the Supreme Court.In other words it can enact law which affects the jurisdiction ofthe High Court, except under Articles 226 and 227, but it cannotenact law which touches the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.The Rent Control Tribunal having been established under Article323B of the Constitution, the diminution, if any, of thejurisdiction of the High Court, except under Article 226 and 227,would be saved by Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, butnot the provision for statutory appeal to the Supreme Court.[Para 73] [1124-D-F]

10.3 The submission that Article 138(1) and/or Entry 77of the Union List only takes within its ambit, the Originaljurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not its appellatejurisdiction, is fallacious and without basis. There is no reasonto restrict the scope of Article 138(1) or of Entry 77 of the UnionList in the Schedule to the Constitution artificially. Entry 77 ofthe Union List, going by its plain meaning, as also Article 138(1)should include both Original and appellate jurisdiction of theSupreme Court. [Para 74] [1124-F-G]

11.1 The submission that when State Law gets theassent of the President of India, that law prevails in the States,

Anotwithstanding repugnancy with an earlier Union law, isunexceptionable. However, Presidential assent makes nodifference in case of legislative incompetence. Presidentialassent cannot and does not validate an enactment in excess ofthe legislative powers of the State Legislature, nor validate astatutory provision, which would render express provisions ofBthe Constitution otiose. Presidential assent cures repugnancywith an earlier Central Statute, provided the State Legislatureis otherwise competent to enact the Statute. [Para 75, 76] [1124-H; 1125-A-B]

C11.2 In view of the finding that Presidential assent wouldnot validate statutory provision which the legislature wasincompetent to enact, there is no need to go into the questionof whether the President had occasion to consider therepugnancy of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act with theprovisions of the Constitution, including in particular, Entry 65Dof the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, whichexpressly exclude from the State Legislature, the competenceand/or power to enact law affecting the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court. [Para 77] [1125-C]12. Section 13(2) of the Rent Act purports to confer rightEof statutory Second Appeal to the Supreme Court. Even in caseof concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent ControlTribunal, where no serious question of law were involved, anappeal would have to be entertained and decided. Such aprovision which mandates the Supreme Court to consider anFappeal is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the StateLegislature. Article 200 does not and cannot validate an ultravires enactment, which the concerned Legislature lackedcompetence to enact. [Para 79] [1125-E-F]

13.1 Article 138 (2) of the Constitution provides that theGSupreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powerswith respect to any matter as the Government of India and theGovernment of any State may by special agreement confer, ifParliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdictionand powers by the Supreme Court. special agreement, means,Han independent agreement arrived at between the Government

of India and the Government of State through deliberations andnegotiations and not just an approval of legislation by thePresident on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Inany case, the Supreme Court may exercise further jurisdictionpursuant to special agreement between the Government ofIndia and the State Government on any particular issue, providedParliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdictionand powers by the Supreme Court. Parliament has not enactedany such law enabling the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdictionin respect of subject matter agreed upon between theGovernment of India and the State Government. Article 138(2)is not attracted. [Para 80, 82, 83] [1125-G-H; 1126-B-D]

13.2 It cannot be said that reservation of Bill forPresidential assent and consequential grant of Presidentialassent, tantamounts to special agreement between theGovernment of India and the State Government, because thePresident acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.[Para 81] [1126-B-C]

14. The power of superintendence conferred by Article227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled lawthat this power of judicial superintendence must be exercisedsparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within thelimits of their authority. When Tribunal has acted within itsjurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of itsextraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriageof justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article227 cannot be exercised “in the cloak of an appeal in disguise”.In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitutionof India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patenterror of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity;arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles ofnatural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. TheHigh Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exerciseits writ jurisdiction to test decision of the Rent Control Tribunalwould depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thewrit jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an

Aalternative appellate forum, just because there is no otherprovision of appeal in the eye of law. [Para 86, 87] [1126-G-H;1127-A-C]

L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others AIR1997 SC 1125 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – followed.B

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr AIR 1974SC 2192 ; Puthiyadath Jayamathy Avva and Ors. v.K.J. Naga Kumar and Ors. AIR 2001 Ker 38 ; K.K.Poonacha v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 9SCC 671 : [2010] 10 SCR 1022 ; United ProvincesCv. Atika Begum AIR 1941 FC 16 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3613Fof 2016.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the RentControl Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Regional Bench at Raipur in Appeal No.25 of 2015

WithG

Civil Appeal Nos. 10214 of 2016, 3051 of 2017.

K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Sameer Shrivastava, KunalVerma, Vikrant Singh Bais, Shriram P. Pingle, Sumeer Sodhi, AshishTiwari, Kaustubh Shukla, Abhay Singh, Purshotham Reddy, KunalHVerma, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

1. This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of theChhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the“Rent Control Act”, is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the RentControl Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passedby the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by therespondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed.

2. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained inthis Act, landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any orderof the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal inthe prescribed manner within the prescribed time to theRent Control Tribunal.

(2) Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunalshall lie with the Supreme Court.

3. By an order dated 18.4.2016, Bench of this Court expressedserious doubts about the maintainability of the appeal, observing thatthe State of Chhattishgarh prima facie lacked legislative competenceto enact law providing for statutory appeals directly to the SupremeCourt, from the orders of Tribunal. Notice was, accordingly, directedto be issued to the Attorney General for India and the Advocate Generalfor the State of Chhattisgarh.

4. On 19.4.2017, another Bench of this Court heard amongstothers, the Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh. TheAdvocate General, inter alia, argued that the Rent Control Act havingreceived the assent of the President of India, Section 13(2) thereof wasprotected by Article 138(2) read with Article 200 of the Constitution ofIndia and was valid and enforceable.

5. After hearing Counsel and the learned Advocate General forthe State of Chhattisgarh, the Bench was of the view that the appealinvolved substantial question of law as to the interpretation of theConstitution, and accordingly referred the appeal to the Chief Justiceof India, for assignment to Constitution Bench of this Court, in termsof Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The Chief Justice has referredthe appeal to this Bench.

6. The question which requires to be determined by this Benchis, whether Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act is ultra vires theConstitution of India, by reason of lack of legislative competence ofthe Chhattisgarh State legislature to enact the provision.

7. Before dealing with the arguments advanced before thisBBench, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India are set outhereinbelow for convenience:-

“124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court

(1)There shall be Supreme Court of India consisting of aChief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribesCa larger number, of not more than seven other Judges

xxxxxxxxx

130. Seat of Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court shall sitin Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justiceof India may, with the approval of the President, from timeto time, appoint.

131: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the SupremeCourt shall, to the exclusion of any other court, haveoriginal jurisdiction in any dispute –

(a) between the Government of India and one or moreStates; or

(b) between the Government of India and any State orStates on one side and one or more other States onthe other; or

(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as thedispute involves any question (whether of law orfact) on which the existence or extent of legal rightdepends:

Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to adispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant,engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, havingbeen entered into or executed before the commencement of

this Constitution, continues in operation after suchcommencement, or which provides that the said jurisdictionshall not extend to such dispute.

132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals fromHigh Courts in certain cases.-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from anyjudgement, decree or final order of High Court inthe territory of India, whether in civil, criminal orother proceeding, if the High Court certifies underarticle 134A that the case involves substantialquestion of law as to the interpretation of thisConstitution.

(2) ……. omitted w.e.f. 1.8.1979

(3) Where such certificate is given, any party in thecase may appeal to the Supreme Court on the groundthat any such question as aforesaid has beenwrongly decided. Explanation.- For the purpose ofthis article, the expression “final order” includes anorder deciding an issue which, if decided in favourof the appellant, would be sufficient for the finaldisposal of the case.

133: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals fromHigh Courts in regard to civil matters.-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from anyjudgment, decree or final order in civil proceeding of aHigh Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifiesunder under Article 134A

(a) that the case involves substantial question of lawof general importance; and

(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the saidquestion needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any partyappealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urgeas one of the grounds in such appeal that substantialquestion of law as to the interpretation of this Constitutionhas been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall,unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to theSupreme Court from the judgement, decree or final order ofone Judge of High Court.

134: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard tocriminal matters.-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from anyjudgement, final order or sentence in criminal proceedingof High Court in the territory of India if the High Court –(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of anaccused person and sentenced him to death; or (b) haswithdrawn for trial before itself any case from any courtsubordinate to its authority and has in such trial convictedthe accused person and sentenced him to death; or (c)certifies under article 134A that the case is fit one forappeal to the Supreme Court:

Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subjectto such provisions as may be made in that behalf underclause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the HighCourt may establish or require.

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court anyfurther powers to entertain and hear appeals from anyjudgment, final order or sentence in criminal proceedingof High Court in the territory of India subject to suchconditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.

134A: Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.-

Every High Court, passing or making judgment, decree,final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article134. –

(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf ofthe party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or makingof such judgment, decree, final order or sentence,determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making,the question whether certificate of the nature referred to

in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of article 133 or,as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article134, may be given in respect of that case.

135: Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court underexisting law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court.-

Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the SupremeCourt shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respectto any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation tothat matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediatelybefore the commencement of this Constitution under anyexisting law.

136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, theSupreme Court may, in its discretion, grant specialDleave to appeal from any judgment, decree,determination, sentence or order in any cause ormatter passed or made by any court or tribunal inthe territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,determination, sentence or order passed or made byany court or tribunal constituted by or under anylaw relating to the Armed Forces.

137: Review of judgments or orders by the SupremeCourt.-

Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament orany rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shallhave power to review any judgment pronounced or ordermade by it.

138: Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt.-

(1) The Supreme Court shall have such furtherjurisdiction and powers with respect to any of thematters in the Union List as Parliament may by lawconfer.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have such furtherjurisdiction and powers with respect to any matteras the Government of India and the Government ofany State may by special agreement confer, ifParliament by law provides for the exercise of suchjurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.

139: Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue

certain writs.-

Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court powerto issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in thenature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quowarranto and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposesother than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32.

139A: Transfer of certain cases.-

(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the sameDquestions of law are pending before the Supreme Court andone or more High Courts or before two or more High Courtsand the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or onan application made by the Attorney-General of India or bya party to any such case that such questions are substantialEquestions of general importance, the Supreme Court maywithdraw the case or cases pending before the High Courtor the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:

Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining thesaid questions of law return any case so withdrawn togetherFwith copy of its judgment on such questions to the HighCourt from which the case has been withdrawn, and the HighCourt shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the casein conformity with such judgment.

(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to dofor the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or otherproceedings pending before any High Court to any otherHigh Court.

140: Ancillary powers of Supreme Court.-

Parliament may by law make provision for conferring uponHthe Supreme Court such supplemental powers not

inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitutionas may appear to be necessary or desirable for the purposeof enabling the court more effectively to exercise thejurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Constitution.

141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on allcourts.-

The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding onall courts within the territory of India.

142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Courtand orders as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdictionmay pass such decree or make such order as isnecessary for doing complete justice in any causeor matter pending before it, and any decree sopassed or order so made shall be enforceablethroughout the territory of India in such manner asmay be prescribed by or under any law made byParliament and, until provision in that behalf is somade, in such manner as the President may by orderprescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in thisbehalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, asrespects the whole of the territory of India, have alland every power to make any order for the purposeof securing the attendance of any person, thediscovery or production of any documents, or theinvestigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

143: Power of President to consult Supreme Court.-

(1) If at any time it appears to the President that aquestion of law or fact has arisen, or is likely toarise, which is of such nature and of such publicimportance that it is expedient to obtain the opinionof the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer thequestion to that Court for consideration and theCourt may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, reportto the President its opinion thereon.

(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in theproviso to article 131, refer dispute of the kindmentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Courtfor opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after suchhearing as it thinks fit, report to the President itsopinion thereon.

144: Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of theSupreme Court.-

All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shallact in aid of the Supreme Court.

145: Rules of Court, etc.-

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament,the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approvalof the President, make rules for regulating generally thepractice and procedure of the Court….”

xxxxxxxxx

200. Assent to Bills. When Bill has been passed by theLegislative Assembly of State or, in the case of Statehaving Legislative Council, has been passed by both Housesof the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to theGovernor and the Governor shall declare either that heassents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom orthat he reserves the Bill for the consideration of thePresident:

Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible afterthe presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Billif it is not Money Bill together with message requestingthat the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or anyspecified provisions thereof and, in particular, will considerthe desirability of introducing any such amendments as hemay recommend in his message and, when Bill is so returned,the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly,and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses withor without amendment and presented to the Governor forassent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, butshall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill

which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law,so derogate from the powers of the High Court as toendanger the position which that Court is by this Constitutiondesigned to fill.

201. Bill reserved for consideration.- When Bill is reservedby Governor for the consideration of the President, thePresident shall declare either that he assents to the Bill orthat he withholds assent therefrom:

Provided that, where the Bill is not Money Bill, the Presidentmay direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or,as the case may be, the Houses of the Legislature of the Statetogether with such message as it mentioned in the firstproviso to Article 200 and, when Bill is so returned, theHouse or Houses shall reconsider it accordingly within aperiod of six months from the date of receipt of such messageand, if it is again passed by the House or Houses with orwithout amendment, it shall be presented again to thePresident for his consideration.

xxxxxxxxx

245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by theLegislatures of States.-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,Parliament may make laws for the whole or any partof the territory of India, and the Legislature of aState may make laws for the whole or any part ofthe State

(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to beinvalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial operation.

246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by theLegislatures of States.- (1) Notwithstanding anything inclauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to makelaws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List Iin the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to asthe “Union List”).

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and,subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, havepower to make laws with respect to any of the mattersenumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in thisConstitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”).

(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any Statehas exclusive power to make laws for such State or any partthereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in ListII in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred toas the “State List”).

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to anymatter for any part of the territory of India not included ina State notwithstanding that such matter is matterenumerated in the State List.

247. Power of Parliament to provide for the establishmentDof certain additional courts.-

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may bylaw provide for the establishment of any additional courtsfor the better administration of laws made by Parliament orof any existing laws with respect to matter enumerated inthe Union List.

248. Residuary powers of legislation.-

(1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law withrespect to any matter not enumerated in theConcurrent List or State List

(2) Such power shall include the power of making anylaw imposing tax not mentioned in either of thoseLists

262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-Staterivers or river valleys.- (1) Parliament may by law providefor the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respectto the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, anyinter-State river or river valley.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, ParliamentHmay by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any

other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any suchdispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in theHigh Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.- (1) Notwithstandinganything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, untilParliament by law otherwise provides-

(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in everyHigh Court,

(b) the authoritative texts-

(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendmentsthereto to be moved in either House ofParliament or in the House or either House ofthe Legislature of State,

(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or theLegislature of State and of all Ordinancespromulgated by the President or the Governor ofa State, and

(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-lawsissued under this Constitution or under any lawmade by Parliament or the Legislature of State,shall be in the English language.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1),the Governor of State may, with the previous consent ofthe President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, orany other language used for any official purposes of theState, in proceedings in the High Court having its principalseat in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to anyjudgment, decree or order passed or made by such HighCourt.”

8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submittedthat the Rent Control Act has been enacted by the Chhattisgarh StateLegislature, in exercise of legislative power conferred by Entry 18 ofList II, that is, the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitutionof India.

A9. Counsel argued that Entry 77 of List I, that is, the Union List,confers exclusive power to the Union Legislature, to legislate withregard to the constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of theSupreme Court, including contempt of such Court, whereas Entry 65of the State List enables the State Legislature to legislate in respect ofthe jurisdiction and power of all Courts, except the Supreme Court.B

10. Learned Counsel argued that Section 13(2) of the RentControl Act does not confer any additional jurisdiction to the SupremeCourt, which the Supreme Court did not otherwise possess. Section13(2) of the Rent Control Act confers appellate jurisdiction to theSupreme Court of India, which the Supreme Court, in any case, alwaysChad and still has under Article 136 of the Constitution.

11. Learned Counsel further argued that Entry 77 enables theUnion Parliament to legislate with regard to the constitution, organization,jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court of India. According toCounsel, the scope of this Entry cannot be widened to include theDappellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

12. Counsel emphatically asserted that Article 138(1) providesthat the Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powerswith respect to any of the matters in the Union List, as Parliament mayby law confer. This provision, according to Counsel, can only beEunderstood to include the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

13. Counsel argued that Article 138(2) provides that the SupremeCourt shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect toany matter, as Government of India and the Government of any Statemay, by special agreement, confer, if Parliament by law provides forFexercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.

14. Learned Counsel next argued that Section 13(2) of the RentControl Act is in consonance with Article 138, read with Article 200 ofthe Constitution of India, which enables the State Legislature to enactlaw curtailing the jurisdiction of the High Court, subject to the assentGof the President of India.

15. Counsel further argued that if, in the opinion of the Governor,any Bill, if it becomes law, would so derogate from the powers of theHigh Court, as to endanger the position which the High Court is by theConstitution, designed to fill, the Governor is not to assent to the bill,Hbut reserve the same for the consideration of the President.

16. Counsel submitted that law which curtails powers of theHigh Court may be validated by Presidential assent. The StateLegislature can restrict the appellate power of the High Court byproviding for direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

17. Counsel argued that comparative reading of Articles 138(2)and Article 200 show that the State can make law conferring appellatejurisdiction on the Supreme Court in the following two conditions:

(i) When Government of India and Government of anyStateagree to confer jurisdiction and power on theSupreme Court [Article 138(2)];

(ii) When the President assents to the Bill forwarded by theGovernor of the State [second proviso to Article 200]

18. Learned Counsel submitted that in this case, the conditionsof Article 138(2) and the Second proviso to Article 200 have both beencomplied with. The President has, on reference by the Governor,assented to the Bill, which has resulted in new enactment.

19. Learned Counsel argued that, as per Article 74 of theConstitution, the President is to act as per the aid and advice of theCouncil of Ministers. To strengthen his argument that the Presidentcannot act independently, but can only act on the aid and advice of hisCouncil of Ministers, Counsel cited Samsher Singh vs.the State ofPunjab and Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC 2192: (1974) 2 SCC831.

20. According to Counsel, assent by the President, on the aidand advice of the Council of Ministers, tantamounts to compliance withthe conditions in Article 138(2) of the Constitution, as Presidential assenton the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, means agreementbetween the State Government and the Government of India to conferappellate jurisdiction and power to the Supreme Court in relation toorders of the Rent Control Tribunal.

21. Counsel also emphasized on the difference in the languageof Article 138 (1) and Article 138(2) and in particular the use of theexpression, ‘Government of India’ in Article 138(2) as against theexpression ‘Parliament’ in Article 138(1), to argue that the Governmentof India and the Government of any State may by special agreementconfer further jurisdiction and powers to the Supreme Court, for which

Ano statutory enactment of Parliament is necessary. The advice of theCouncil of Ministers to the President of India, to assent to Stateenactment evinces an agreement between the Government of India andthe State Government in that regard.

22. Counsel has also cited Puthiyadath Jayamathy Avva andBOrs. vs. K.J. Naga Kumar and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 KER 38.The part of the judgment cited is extracted hereinbelow:-

“...if the President assents to State law which has beenreserved for consideration under Article 200, it will prevailnotwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of theCUnion. Thus, even if there is repugnancy, the law made bythe Legislature of the State, if it was reserved forconsideration of the President and has received his assent,will prevail in the State. Thus, from the Act XXX of 1976, itcan be seen that it was reserved for the consideration of thePresident and the President has given his assent on 10-8-D1976. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel forthe appellants that the State enactment cannot override theCentral enactment cannot be accepted as correct...”

23. Counsel finally argued that it was settled law that in case ofany inconsistency between the provisions of the Constitution and theEprovisions of any statutory enactment, the various articles of theConstitution and the various provisions of the statutory enactmentsshould be harmoniously construed.

24. Elaborating on his argument, Counsel pointed out that theexpression “derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endangerFthe position which that Court by this Constitution, is designed to fill” inthe last part of the second proviso to Article 200 alludes to derogationof the inherent powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and Article227 of the Constitution of India. The Rent Control Act does not touchthe power of the High Courts, of judicial review under Articles 226 andG227 of the Constitution of India. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Actonly confers appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of India, whichis not prohibited or barred under the Constitution.

25. Counsel emphatically reiterated his argument that the RentControl Act has not conferred any jurisdiction on the Supreme Court,Hwhich it did not earlier possess. Article 136 provides for appeal to the

Supreme Court against any order of any Court or Tribunal. Section 13(2)of the Rent Control Act is only in consonance with or may be anextension of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

26. The learned Attorney General for India, on the other hand,submitted that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act which providesfor direct appeal to the Supreme Court of India, from any order passedby the Rent Control Tribunal, set up under the Rent Control Act, isunconstitutional, the same being beyond the legislative competence ofthe State Legislature of Chhattisgarh.

27. The learned Attorney General submitted that lack oflegislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature, to enactSection 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, is evident from mere readingof three entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,that is,Entry 77 of List 1 (Union List), Entry 65 of List II (State List)and Entry 46 of List III (Concurrent List).

28. The learned Attorney General submitted that it would be seenthat Entry 77 of List I, read with Article 146(1) of the Constitution,confers on Parliament the exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regardto the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court of India.Furthermore, Entry 65 of List II, as well as Entry 46 of List III, prohibita State Legislature from legislating in regard to the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court of India.

29. The learned Attorney General further submitted that the clearscheme and architecture of these entries is buttressed by otherprovisions in the Constitution, which confer only on Parliament thecompetence to legislate in regard to the Supreme Court of India. Theseprovisions include Articles 124(1), 125(1), 125(2), 133(3), 134(2), 135(1),137, 138(1), 138(2), 139, 140, 145(1), 262 and 348(1).

30. The learned Attorney General submitted that, the fact thatthe Rent Control Act had been reserved for the assent of the Presidentof India, under Article 200 of the Constitution, and had received theassent of the President in terms of Article 201, would not in any manneralter the extent of legislative competence of the State Legislature. Thisis for the reason that, neither the Governor of any State, nor thePresident of India, may confer legislative competence on any legislativebody, whether Parliament or State Legislature, contrary to theprovisions of the Constitution.

A31. The learned Attorney General argued that the distribution oflegislative powers between Parliament and the State Legislatures isgoverned by Chapter I of Part XI of the Constitution, including Articles246 and 248, along with the three Lists contained in the SeventhSchedule to the Constitution. Any question of legislative competencewould have to be decided finally by this Court, in accordance with theseBprovisions of the Constitution.

32. The learned Attorney General referred to the decision of thisCourt in K.K. Poonacha vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reportedin (2010) 9 SCC 671, which interprets, inter alia, Article 31(3) of theConstitution, as it stood prior to its repeal. Article 31 pertained to theCcompulsory acquisition of property, and Clause (3) thereof stated that“No such law as stated in Clause (2) made by the Legislature of aState shall have effect unless such law, having been reserved for theconsideration of the President, has received his assent”. In K.K.Poonacha (supra), this Court opined:-D“What was implicit in the language of Article 31(3) was thatthe particular law was within the legislative competence ofthe State and such law did not violate the provisionscontained in Part III or any other provision of theConstitution. The assent given by the President in terms ofEArticle 31(3) of the Constitution to law enacted by thelegislature of State did not mean that the particularenactment acquired immunity from challenge even though thesame was not within the legislative competence of the Stateor was otherwise violative of any constitutional provision.”

F33. The learned Attorney General submitted, and rightly, that theobservations of this Court in K.K. Poonacha (supra) squarely applyto the grant of assent by the President of India under Article 201 ofthe Constitution.

34. The learned Attorney General submitted that it is worth notingGthat the Governor of State may reserve Bill for the considerationof the President of India for various reasons, including inconsistencywith parliamentary statute, impact of the statute on relations with otherstates, etc. In certain situations, the Governor is bound to reserve aBill for the consideration of the President, including matters coveredby the second proviso to Article 200, i.e. Bill, which in the opinion ofHthe Governor would “so derogate from the powers of the High Courtas to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitutiondesigned to fill”. This is consistent with the role and duty of the Governorof State, and the President of India, who, like the King of Englandwill still have the right “to be consulted, to encourage and to warn”, asexplained in Shamsher Singh (supra). However, the grant of assentby the Governor, or by the President, would not in any manner affector control the issue of legislative competence of the legislature of theState.

35. The learned Attorney General also referred to recentjudgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered on 15.10.2019 inCivil Appeal No.5153 of 2019 (H.S. Yadav vs. Shakuntala DeviParakh) striking down Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act as ultravires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the StateLegislature.

36. Parliament and the State Legislatures derive their power tomake laws from Article 245(1) of the Constitution of India and suchpower is subject to and/or limited by the provisions of the Constitution.While Parliament can make law for the whole or any part of the territoryof India, the State Legislature can only make laws for the State orany part thereof, subject to the restrictions in the Constitution of India.

37. Article 246, which distributes legislative powers between theUnion Legislature and the State Legislature, confers exclusive powerto Parliament to make laws in respect of the matters specified in ListI in the Seventh Schedule, that is, the Union List. The Union Parliamentalso has, subject to Clause (3) of Article 246, the power to make lawswith respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the SeventhSchedule, that is, the Concurrent List.

38. While Parliament has exclusive power under Article 246(1)of the Constitution to make laws with respect to the mattersenumerated in the Union List, the State Legislature has exclusive powerto make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the State List,subject to Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246. Along with the UnionLegislature, the State Legislature is also competent to enact laws inrespect of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, subject tothe provisions of Article 246(1).

39. The entries in the three lists, relevant to the issues referredto this Bench, that is, Entry 77 of the Union List, Entries 18 and 65 of

Athe State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List are set outhereinbelow for convenience:-

“List I- Union List

“77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers ofthe Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), andBthe fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before theSupreme Court.”

List II – State List

“18. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenuresCincluding the relation of landlord and tenant, and thecollection of rents; transfer and alienation of agriculturalland; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.

xxxxxx

65. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the SupremeDCourt, with respect to any of the matters in this List.”

List III - Concurrent List

46. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the SupremeCourt, with respect to any of the matters in this List.”

E40. The Supreme Court has been established under Article 124of the Constitution of India and derives its jurisdiction and powers fromArticles 131 to 145 thereof. There is no provision in the Constitutionwhich provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court, from an orderof Tribunal constituted under any law enacted by State Legislature.

F41. Article 262(2) of the Indian Constitution which enablesParliament to enact law abrogating the power of the Supreme Courtto adjudicate the disputes referred to in Article 262(1), and Article 348of the Constitution of India in respect of parliamentary enactmentsrelating to the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts,referred to by the Learned Attorney General for India, are not reallyGof relevance to the issue referred to this Bench for determination,except to demonstrate that all matters pertaining to the Supreme Courtare exclusively within the legislative domain of Union Parliament.

42. Entry 18 of the State List enables the State Legislature toenact law with respect to land, including rights in and over land, landHtenures including relation of landlord and tenant and the collection of

rent. The State Legislature being clothed with power to enact law inrespect of land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant andthe collection of rent, it had legislative competence to enact the RentControl Act, in so far as the same regulates the relationship of landlordand tenant and the collection of rent.

43. Article 323B inserted in the Constitution of India, with effectfrom 3[rd] January, 1977, by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment)Act 1976 empowers the appropriate legislature to enact law providingfor adjudication and/or trial by Tribunals, of any disputes, offences orcomplaints with respect to all or any of the matters in Clause (2) ofthe said Article.

44. Clause (2) of Article 323B was amended by the Constitution(Seventy fifth Amendment) Act, with effect from 15[th] May, 1994 tointer alia insert clause (h), thereby enabling the appropriate legislatureto make law, providing for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of anydisputes, complaints or offences, in respect of issues relating to tenancyand rent, including regulation and control of rent.

45. The Explanation appended to Section 323B of the Constitutionexplains “appropriate legislature” in Article 323B to mean Parliament,or as the case may be, State Legislature, competent to make lawswith respect to the matter in accordance with the provisions of PartXI of the Constitution of India, which includes Articles 245 and 246.

46. On conjoint reading of Article 323B and Articles 245 and246 of the Constitution of India with Entry 18 of the State List in theSeventh Schedule, there can be no doubt that the State Legislature wascompetent to enact law to provide for adjudication and trial of alldisputes, complaints and offences relating to tenancy and rent, by aTribunal.

47. The Chhattisgarh State Legislature was thus competent toenact the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for theadjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent by the RentController, and creates Tribunal to decide appeals from orders of theRent Controller, but subject to the exception, as discussed hereafter.

48. When the question of vires of any enactment is considered,it is to be seen, whether looking at the legislation as whole, it can besaid to be legislation, substantially with respect to any of the matters,with regard to which the Legislature is competent to legislate, under

Aany specific Article of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in therelevant List in the Seventh Schedule thereto. Once it is held that itis so, the legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to allancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to becomprehended in that arena, as held by the Federal Court in UnitedProvinces vs. Atika Begum reported in AIR 1941 FC 16 (25) andBreiterated by this Court in numerous judgments.

49. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, providing for directappeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed by the Rent ControlTribunal, is not ancillary or incidental to the power of the ChhattisgarhState Legislature to enact Rent Control Act, which provides forCappellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent by aTribunal. In enacting Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, theChhattisgarh State Legislature has overtly transgressed the limits of itslegislative power, as reiterated and discussed hereinafter.

50. While the widest amplitude should be given to the languageDused in one entry, every attempt has to be made to harmonize itscontents with those of other Entries, so that the latter may not berendered nugatory.

51. As observed above, both the Union legislature and the StateLegislature derive their power to legislate from Article 245 of theEConstitution of India. It is axiomatic that the legislature of State mayonly make laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliamentmay make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India.There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State laws withextra-territorial operation, similar to Article 245(2) which expressly savesUnion laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted by Parliament. TheFChhattisgarh State Legislature, thus, patently lacks competence to enactany law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, outsidethe State of Chhattisgarh.

52. Entry 18 of the State List only enables the State Legislatureto legislate with regard to landlord tenant relationship, collection of rentsGetc. This Entry does not enable the State Legislature to circumventEntry 64 of the State List or Entry 46 of the Concurrent List whichenable the State Legislature to enact laws with respect to the jurisdictionand powers of Courts, except the Supreme Court, or to render otiose,Entry 77 of the Union List, which expressly confers law making powerin respect of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, exclusively toHParliament.

53. Entry 18 of the State List, which only enables the StateLegislature to legislate with regard to land, land tenures, landlord tenantrelationship, collection of rents etc. does not enable the State Legislatureto enact law conferring appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court inrespect of orders passed by an Appellate Rent Control Tribunal,constituted under state law.

54. In view of Entry 77 of the Union List, only Parliament hasthe legislative competence to legislate with respect to the constitution,organization, jurisdiction or powers of the Supreme Court. Entry 64 ofthe State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List enable the StateLegislature to enact law with respect to the jurisdiction and powers ofCourts except the Supreme Court. In other words, the said Entriesexpressly debar the State Legislature from legislating with respect tothe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.55. Article 323B (3)(d) provides that law made under Article323B (1) may exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdictionof the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to all or any ofthe matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said tribunals. Article323B does not enable State Legislature to expand the jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Court by enacting provision for further statutory appealto the Supreme Court from an order of an Appellate Tribunal.

56. The contention of Counsel for the appellant that Section 13(2)of the Rent Control Act does not confer on the Supreme Court,jurisdiction it did not already possess, but is only incidental to and/orextension of its power under Article 136, is not sustainable in law.

57. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Courtdoes not act as regular court of appeal. The power of the SupremeCourt under Article 136 is not to be confused with the appellate powerordinarily exercised by appellate courts and Tribunals under specificstatutes.

58. Article 136 does not confer right of appeal on any party,but confers discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interferein appropriate cases. This power can be exercised in spite of otherprovisions for appeal contained in the Constitution, or any other law, asheld in N. Natarajan vs. B. K. Subba Rao reported in (2003) 2 SCC76.

A59. Conclusiveness or finality given by statute to decision of aCourt or Tribunal, cannot deter the Supreme Court from exercising thisjurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution as held by ConstitutionBench of this Court, inter alia, in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd.vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported in AIR 1955SC 65 and reiterated in numerous other decisions. appellate jurisdictionBis not exercised when statute gives finality to decision of the Courtor Tribunal.

60. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the SupremeCourt entertains appeals by special leave, where substantial questionsof law or questions of public importance are involved. Where there isCany uncertainty in the law, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, settlesthe law. The Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrentfindings of fact under Article 136. If the concurrent findings are basedon accepted oral or documentary evidence, there is no interferenceunder Article 136 of the Constitution.D

61. While exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution,the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate evidence which has beenappreciated by the Trial Court and the High Courts, unless extraordinarycircumstances exist. It is only where the High Court has completelymissed the real point requiring adjudication or has missed or ignoredEthe relevant material, would the Supreme Court be justified in gettinginto evidence for the purpose of preventing grave injustice to party.

62. An appeal, on the other hand, is continuation of the originalproceedings. Where there is statutory appeal from an appellate orderof the Tribunal, the appellate court is obliged to rehear the case, re-Fappreciate and re-analyze the evidence on record, adjudicate thecorrectness of the order impugned and correct errors both of fact andof law, that the Tribunal may have made.

63. Article 200 of the Constitution relating to the passage of Billsexcept money Bills, requires Bills passed by the Legislative AssemblyGof State, or in case of State having Legislative Council, billpassed by both the houses of the Legislature of the State, to bepresented to the Governor for assent. Such Bills become law on receiptof assent of the Governor.

64. The second proviso to Article 200 of the ConstitutionHmandates the Governor not to assent, but reserve for the consideration

of the President, any Bill, which in the opinion of the Governor would,if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court, asto endanger the position which that Court is, by the Constitution,designed to fill.

65. Presidential assent is imperative in the case of law enactedby State Legislature, which would derogate from the powers of theHigh Court, as to endanger the position which that Court is, by theConstitution, designed to fill.

66. Entry 65 of the State List read with Entry 46 of theConcurrent List, as stated above, enables the State Legislature to enactlaw with respect to the jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, exceptthe Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in those lists.The State Legislature may, therefore, be competent to enact law whichaffects the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court, except thejurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution, held by Constitution Bench of this Court, to bean inviolable basic feature of the Constitution in L Chandra Kumarvs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125.

67. Counsel for the appellant is right in arguing that L ChandraKumar (supra) pertains to the power of the High Court under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The State Legislature has thepower to enact law which abridges the powers of the High Court, exceptthose powers, which constitute an inviolable basic feature of theConstitution, such as the powers of the High Court under Articles 226and 227.

68. The second proviso to Article 200, of the Constitutionprohibits the Governor from assenting to Bill, which in the opinion ofthe Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers ofthe High Court, as to endanger the position which the High Court is,by the Constitution of India, design to fill. The Governor is obliged toreserve such bill for the consideration of the President.

69. The second proviso to Article 200 is not attracted in the caseof Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, since it does not derogatefrom any power of the High Court. It is well settled that there is noinherent right of appeal. Right of appeal is conferred by Statute. AStatute is not invalid only because it has no provision of appeal to theHigh Court.

A70. For the purpose of this reference, it is not necessary for usto go into the question of which curtailments of the power of the HighCourt would threaten the position which the High Court is required bythe Constitution to fill.

71. The amplitude of power conferred by Clauses 1 and 2 ofBArticle 246, makes the Parliament competent to make law enlargingthe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to any of the mattersenumerated in List I and III, even though such enlargement may notbe contemplated by the various Articles of Chapter IV of Part V ofthe Constitution.

C72. By virtue of the power conferred by Article 248 of theConstitution of India, the Parliament has, subject to Article 246 ofthe Constitution, exclusive power to make any law with respect to anymatter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List. Theresiduary power of legislation thus rests with Parliament.

73. Suffice it to note that in view of Entry 65 of the State ListDand Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, the State Legislature can enactlaw which affects the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the SupremeCourt. In other words it can enact law which affects the jurisdictionof the High Court, except under Articles 226 and 227, but it cannotenact law which touches the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. TheERent Control Tribunal having been established under Article 323B ofthe Constitution, as observed above, the diminution, if any, of thejurisdiction of the High Court, except under Article 226 and 227, wouldbe saved by Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, but not the provisionfor statutory appeal to the Supreme Court.F74. The argument of Learned Counsel for the appellant thatArticle 138(1) and/or Entry 77 of the Union List only takes within itsambit, the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not itsappellate jurisdiction, is fallacious and without basis. There is no reasonto restrict the scope of Article 138(1) or of Entry 77 of the Union Listin the Schedule to the Constitution artificially. Entry 77 of the UnionGList, going by its plain meaning, as also Article 138(1) should includeboth Original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

75. The proposition urged by Counsel for the appellant that whena State Law gets the assent of the President of India, that law prevailsin the States, notwithstanding repugnancy with an earlier Union law, isHunexceptionable.

76. However, Presidential assent makes no difference in caseof legislative incompetence. Presidential assent cannot and does notvalidate an enactment in excess of the legislative powers of the StateLegislature, nor validate statutory provision, which would renderexpress provisions of the Constitution otiose. Presidential assent curesrepugnancy with an earlier Central Statute, provided the StateLegislature is otherwise competent to enact the Statute.

77. In view of our finding that Presidential assent would notvalidate statutory provision which the legislature was incompetent toenact, we need not go into the question of whether the President hadoccasion to consider the repugnancy of Section 13(2) of the RentControl Act with the provisions of the Constitution, including in particular,Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, whichexpressly exclude from the State Legislature, the competence and/orpower to enact law affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

78. law made under Article 323B (1) of the Constitution mayexclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court under Article 136 with respect to the matters fallingwithin the jurisdiction of the said Tribunals. However, as observed above,Article 323B (2) (d) or any other provision of the Constitution does notenable the State Legislature to enact law which provides for statutoryappeals to the Supreme Court.

79. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act purports to confer aright of statutory Second Appeal to the Supreme Court. Even in caseof concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal,where no serious question of law were involved, an appeal would haveto be entertained and decided. Such provision which mandates theSupreme Court to consider an appeal is clearly beyond the legislativecompetence of the State Legislature, as argued by the learned AttorneyGeneral. Article 200 as observed above does not and cannot validatean ultra vires enactment, which the concerned Legislature lackedcompetence to enact.

80. Article 138 (2) of the Constitution provides that the SupremeCourt shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect toany matter as the Government of India and the Government of anyState may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law providesfor the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.

A81. It is difficult to accept the submission of Counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant, that reservation of Bill for Presidentialassent and consequential grant of Presidential assent, tantamounts tospecial agreement between the Government of India and the StateGovernment, because the President acts on the aid and advice of theCouncil of Ministers.B

82. special agreement, in our considered view means, anindependent agreement arrived at between the Government of Indiaand the Government of State through deliberations and negotiationsand not just an approval of legislation by the President on the aid andadvice of the Council of Ministers.C

83. In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise furtherjurisdiction pursuant to special agreement between the Governmentof India and the State Government on any particular issue, providedParliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction andpowers by the Supreme Court. Parliament has not enacted any suchDlaw enabling the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction in respect of asubject matter agreed upon between the Government of India and theState Government. Article 138(2) is not attracted.

84. We are in full agreement with the judgment of this Court inH. S. Yadav (supra) declaring Section 13(2) of the Rent Control ActEultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the power of theState legislature.

85. It is true, that in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) this Court heldthat Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of theConstitution were subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts,Fwithin whose jurisdiction they were located, as noted by this Court inH.S Yadav (supra).

86. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is,however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this powerof judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keepGsubordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority.When Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court doesnot interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless thereis grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdictionunder Article 227 cannot be exercised “in the cloak of an appeal inHdisguise”.

87. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of lawwhich go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/orunreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack ofjurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whetherthe High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test decision ofthe Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstancesof the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be convertedinto an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no otherprovision of appeal in the eye of law.

88. In L Chandrakumar (supra) the Supreme Court in effectheld that the power of the High Court under Article 226/227 of theConstitution, being an inviolable basic feature of the Constitution suchpower cannot be abrogated by statutory enactment or for that mattereven by constitutional amendment. L Chandrakumar (supra) cannotbe construed to enlarge the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article226 and 227, to enable it to exercise appellate powers.

89. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the StateLegislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of theRent Control Act. We, therefore, declare Section 13(2) of the RentControl Act ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and ofno effect.

Ankit Gyan

Referred question answered.