Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala
Background
This appeal arose out of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which purported to allow a direct statutory appeal from the State's Rent Control Tribunal straight to the Supreme Court of India. Earlier benches of the Supreme Court doubted whether a State legislature even has the constitutional power to confer this kind of jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, and the question was referred to a Constitution Bench for a final answer.
Decision Breakdown
The five-judge Bench held that under the Constitution's scheme for dividing law-making powers, only Parliament, never a State legislature, can make laws about the "constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court" (Entry 77 of the Union List). It held that the fact the Chhattisgarh law had received the President's assent made no difference, because presidential assent cannot cure a State legislature's fundamental lack of competence to legislate on that subject in the first place. Accordingly, the Court declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, the provision creating the direct appeal route to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional, null and void, resolving the specific constitutional question referred to this Bench.
Lesson Learnt
State legislatures cannot create new rights of appeal that go directly to the Supreme Court, no matter how the law is passed, only Parliament has the power to expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and getting the President's assent to a State law does not fix a basic lack of legislative power.