NEW DELHI: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today struck down Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 as being mega-vires the Constitution of India and therefore unlawful.
The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, and comprising Indira Banerjee, Vinit Saran, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat held that the state legislature doesn't hold the power to enact legislations that would alter the jurisdiction of the Apex Court of India, It is, therefore, section 13 (2) of the Rent Control Act (RCA) is ultra vires the Constitution.
"It is axiomatic that the legislature of a State may only make laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India."
Section 13(2) of the Act provided for a direct appeal before the Supreme Court against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. In providing for this direct appeal, the State Legislature has transgressed its legislative power, the Court held. The Chhattisgarh State Assembly lacked the jurisdiction or the competence to enact any law that affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
"Entry 77 of the Union List, expressly confers law-making power in respect of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, exclusively to Parliament.
The Court explored into the details of the entries made in the Union, State, and Concurrent lists to point out that Entry 18 in the State list enables a State legislature to legislate on issues of Rent and Tenancy relations. However, this entry does not give the power to the State legislature to avoid other entries in State and Concurrent lists as regards the power to legislate on the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court points out,
"Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party but confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in appropriate cases. This power can be exercised in spite of other provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution, or any other law," the Court said while citing the 2003 judgment in N. Natarajan vs. B. K. Subba Rao.
Further, the Court also remarked in this judgment that a Presidential assent does not validate an enactment that is in excess of legislative powers of the State Legislature.
"Presidential assent cannot and does not validate an enactment in excess of the legislative powers of the State Legislature, nor validate a statutory provision, which would render express provisions of the Constitution otiose. Presidential assent cures repugnancy with an earlier Central Statute, provided the State Legislature is otherwise competent to enact the Statute.
