In a ruling addressing the interplay between legislative power and judicial directions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the enactment of a law by a legislature cannot be treated as contempt of court merely on the ground that it appears to contravene a prior judicial order. The Court stated that such a law must first be declared unconstitutional by a competent court to constitute contempt.
The Constitution Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the judgment while disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 250 of 2007, W.P. (Criminal) No. 119 of 2007, and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2012, filed by Nandini Sundar and others against the State of Chhattisgarh.
Background
The original writ petitions were filed in 2007 raising serious concerns over the support and arming of civilian groups such as Salwa Judum and Special Police Officers (SPOs) by the Chhattisgarh government in its anti-Naxalite operations. The petitioners alleged large-scale human rights violations and sought a series of directions, including disbanding the Salwa Judum, rehabilitation of displaced persons, and investigation into crimes committed by both state-backed groups and Naxalites.
On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court had issued detailed directions restraining the state from using SPOs in counter-insurgency operations and directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe incidents of violence in the villages of Morpalli, Tadmetla, and Timmapuram, as well as attacks on Swami Agnivesh and his companions during their visit in March 2011.
Subsequently, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011. The petitioners filed a contempt petition, arguing that this legislation violated the Supreme Court’s earlier directions and amounted to contempt.
Arguments
For the Petitioners:
Senior Advocate Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan submitted that the State’s enactment of the 2011 Act was in direct violation of the Court’s 2011 judgment and constituted contempt. She further contended that despite repeated orders, there had been inadequate compliance, including lack of response from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and called for continuation of the proceedings.
For the Respondents:
Appearing for the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh, Additional Solicitor General Mr. K.M. Nataraj argued that the purpose of keeping the matters pending was to ensure compliance reports, which had already been filed. He submitted that no cause now survives for the writ petitions or contempt proceedings to remain pending.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court noted that the prayers sought in the writ petitions had already been crystallized in its 2011 judgment and corresponding directions. Addressing the central issue, the bench held:
“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 reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers and emphasized:
“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.”
Referring to Indian Aluminium Co. vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 7 SCC 637, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining a delicate balance among sovereign functionaries under the Constitution.
The bench observed that if the validity of a statute is to be challenged, the appropriate course is to file a constitutional challenge before a competent court, not to initiate contempt proceedings.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded:
- The contempt petition could not be entertained as the grievances raised were in the nature of writ reliefs.
- There was substantial compliance with earlier directions, including submission of required reports.
- With the main reliefs having already been addressed, the writ petitions no longer required adjudication.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of all pending writ petitions and the contempt petition.
Case Titles:
– W.P. (Civil) No. 250 of 2007 – Nandini Sundar & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh
– W.P. (Crl.) No. 119 of 2007
– Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2012
