The Supreme Court stated that no law made by Parliament or a state legislature can be termed contempt of court. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this remark while deciding a 2012 contempt plea.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stated that no law enacted by Parliament or a state legislature can be classified as contempt of court.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this observation while resolving a contempt petition from 2012, filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others.
Also Read: Parliament Breach Not Patriotism: Delhi HC Slams Bhagat Singh Comparison
The contempt petition accused the Chhattisgarh government of failing to comply with a 2011 directive to cease support for vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and for arming tribals under the guise of special police officers in the fight against Maoists.
The petitioners argued that the state government was in contempt of the Supreme Court’s order because it enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which authorized an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in combating Maoist/Naxal violence and legalized the existing special police officers (SPOs) by including them as members.
In addition to claiming that the Chhattisgarh government ignored the directives regarding Salwa Judum, the petitioners noted that instead of disbanding the SPOs and disarming them, the state passed the “Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011,” effectively regularizing all SPOs as of the Supreme Court’s order on July 5, 2011.
They also pointed out that the government had not vacated school buildings and ashrams occupied by security forces nor compensated victims of Salwa Judum and the SPOs.
The Supreme Court, On May 15, stated that the enactment of a law by Chhattisgarh after the court’s order could not be considered an act of contempt.
The court emphasized that to maintain the rule of law and achieve the constitutional goal of establishing an egalitarian society, a careful balance must be upheld between the functions of different sovereign authorities.
“Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law.”
The bench added,
“However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law.”
Given the long-standing situation in Chhattisgarh, the bench highlighted the necessity for “specific steps” to promote peace and rehabilitation in affected areas through coordinated efforts from both the state and the Central Government.
The court stated,
“It is the 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,”
The bench also noted that the judiciary holds the constitutional power to resolve interpretive questions regarding the validity of laws enacted by Parliament or state legislatures.
It remarked,
“However, 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,”
The ruling highlighted that the essence of legislative function lies in the authority of the legislative body to create and amend laws.
The bench affirmed,
“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,”
Also Read: PM Narendra Modi After Waqf Bill Passes Parliament: “Watershed Moment”
The Supreme Court emphasized the legislature’s power to enact laws and to either remove the foundation of a judgment or validate a law that a constitutional court has struck down by amending it to comply with the court’s ruling.
“This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasizes the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution, which is a healthy aspect of the distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers.”
The order concluded,
“Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity.”
Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
