H. S. Yadav v. Shakuntala Devi Parakh
Background
The Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 set up a Rent Controller and, above it, a Rent Control Tribunal, and Section 13(2) of that Act purported to give a direct right of appeal from the Tribunal's orders straight to the Supreme Court of India. The appellant, aggrieved by a Tribunal order, filed such an appeal under Section 13(2). When the appeal came up for admission, the Supreme Court itself raised the question of whether a state legislature even has the constitutional power to create a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court, and issued notice to the Advocate General of Chhattisgarh and the Attorney General of India to address this.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Entry 77 of the Union List and Entry 65 of the State List (and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, only Parliament, not a state legislature, can legislate on the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. It therefore declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act "totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature," and struck it down. Relying on L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, the Court clarified that orders of tribunals set up under Article 323B remain subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. It accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the Supreme Court, while expressly leaving the appellant free to approach the High Court under Article 227 instead.
Lesson Learnt
A state law cannot create a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court, only Parliament can legislate on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction; litigants facing an unfavourable tribunal order under a state tribunal law should look to the High Court's supervisory powers rather than assume a state statute's "appeal to Supreme Court" clause is valid.