Supreme Court: the men who drafted the Act did not even consider the hierarchy of Courts. Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at ,11:40 PM Title of the Case – Hierarchy of the Courts Name of the case –H.S. Yadav vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh., C.A. Nos. 5153 of 2019 (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – 15th Oct 2019 Judges: Justice Deepak Gupta & Justice Surya Kant Subject and sections involved – Article 227 of the Constitution of India Issue: Whether the State Legislature can enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India? Fact of the Case: The State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 under which the hierarchy of adjudicating authorities is Rent Controller, and above that, a Rent Control Tribunal. In terms of Section 7 of the Act the State can appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector, as Rent Controller with territorial jurisdiction to be specified by the Collector. A bare perusal of Section 13 shows that from any order of the Rent Controller an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal and in terms of Section 13(2), an appeal lies as a matter of right to the Supreme Court. It is not disputed before us that the State has the power to constitute the Tribunal. The only issue is whether in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act, the State Legislature could provide an appeal as a matter of right from the order of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court. Ratio of the Case: The Supreme Court held that section 13 (2) off the Act, which provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature. And thus, Section 13(2) of the Act is accordingly struck down. The apex court mentioned that the men who drafted the Act did not even consider the hierarchy of Courts. Entry 46 of List III and Judicial Power of Supreme Court The Entry 46 of List III of the Constitution of India reads as: “46. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this list.” Even Entry 46 makes it clear that as far as the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised under the Concurrent List. Therefore, the powers with regard to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union and Parliament alone can enact a legislation in this regard. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is always there. However, the State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have. Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court the Rent Control Tribunal is a tribunal constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution. In L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, this Court clearly held that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. In view of the law laid down in L. Chandrakumar’s case, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal.