Supreme Court Closes Salwa Judum Case After 18 Yrs; Rejects Plea That Chhattisgarh's New Law On Auxiliary Security Force Was Contempt Of Court
"Any law made by Parliament or State Legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of Court", Court said.;
After 18 long years, the Supreme Court has disposed of the petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar (and others) highlighting human rights violations by security forces and Salwa Judum activists in Chhattisgarh.To recap briefly, the matter arose out of Chhattisgarh government's deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and training them as a counter-measure...
After 18 long years, the Supreme Court has disposed of the petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar (and others) highlighting human rights violations by security forces and Salwa Judum activists in Chhattisgarh.
To recap briefly, the matter arose out of Chhattisgarh government's deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and training them as a counter-measure against the Maoist/Naxalite insurgency problem in the state.
In 2011, taking note of the human rights violations, the top Court delivered a landmark judgment directing that the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs - engaged either as 'Koya Commandos', Salwa Judum or any other force - to tackle the insurgency problem in the state.
However, two writ petitions and one contempt petition relating to the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court. Recently, the Court disposed of all three cases. While the writ petitions were disposed of based on a view that the prayers sought therein stood crystallized in the Court's judgment of 2011, the contempt prayers were seen as seeking writs of mandamus, which could not be granted under contempt jurisdiction.
Insofar as the contempt petition claimed that enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 (which established an auxiliary security force to aid the security forces in tackling the Maoist/Naxalite insurgency problem) resulted in contempt of Court, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said,
"We also observe that the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court...The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise."
The Court reiterated that a state enactment continues to have the force of law unless it is declared ultra vires of the Constitution by a constitutional Court. While Courts can address interpretative doubts and questions regarding validity of such enactments, "the interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court", it said.
The Court also noted, "We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws. Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law."
Emphasizing on the doctrine of separation of powers, it further said that any legislation can be challenged only on the twin prongs of legislative competence and constitutional validity.
"A legislature has, inter alia, the powers to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a Constitutional Court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours."
Having regard to the circumstances in Chhattisgarh, the Court also observed that specific steps are required to be taken for peace and rehabilitation of the area.
"it is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen."
Appearance: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan (for petitioners); ASG KM Nataraj (for Union and State of Chhattisgarh)
Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662