Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. (2019)

The Supreme Court struck down a State law route that sent appeals straight from a Rent Tribunal to the Supreme Court. The Court said only Parliament can shape the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. A State cannot create a brand-new right of appeal to the Supreme Court by itself, even with Presidential assent.

• Section 13(2), Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, was unconstitutional.
• Parliament alone controls Supreme Court jurisdiction (Entry 77, List I).
• Presidential assent cannot cure lack of legislative competence.

1. Is a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court from a State tribunal valid?
2. Did the State Legislature have competence to grant such an appeal?
3. Can Presidential assent validate a provision beyond State power?
4. Does Article 138(2) allow States to confer Supreme Court jurisdiction by assent?

• Entry 77, List I (Union List) — Parliament controls the Supreme Court’s constitution, organisation, jurisdiction, and powers.
• Entries 65 (List II) & 46 (List III) — State power over courts excludes the Supreme Court.
• Article 136 — Discretionary special leave; not a regular appeal.
• Article 138(2) — Needs a special agreement + Parliamentary law; assent alone is not enough.
• Articles 200 & 201 — Presidential assent cannot enlarge State competence.

The Supreme Court declared Section 13(2) unconstitutional. A State Legislature cannot confer or expand appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Regular appeals to the Supreme Court can arise only from the Constitution or a law of Parliament, not from a State statute.

• Entry 77 reserves Supreme Court matters to Parliament.
• Assent under Articles 200/201 does not create competence.
• Article 138(2) needs a special agreement and a Parliamentary law.
• Article 136 remains a discretionary safety valve, not a substitute for statutory appeals.

State Legislatures may legislate on courts—except the Supreme Court. Any attempt to grant a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court violates the constitutional distribution of powers and is ultra vires.

• Protects federal balance between Union and States.
• Prevents fragmentation of Supreme Court’s docket by State statutes.
• Clarifies the limits of Presidential assent and Article 138(2).

Mnemonic: “PAR Rules the SC” — Parliament powers, Assent won’t fix, Right of appeal cannot be State-made.

1. Who: Parliament controls SC jurisdiction.
2. What: No State-made direct appeals.
3. How: Article 138(2) needs agreement + Parliamentary law.

Legislative Competence

Power of a legislature to make laws on a subject under the Constitution.

Presidential Assent

Approval to a State Bill under Articles 200/201; cannot create new powers for the State.

Article 136

Supreme Court’s discretionary power to grant special leave; not a routine appeal.

Article 138(2)

Allows extra SC jurisdiction only via special agreement plus a Parliamentary law.