Why in the News?

The Supreme Court recently held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Chhattisgarh Case (Background, Legislative Response, Supreme Court’s Ruling, Implications, Significance, etc.)

Introduction

• The Supreme Court of India recently concluded a writ and contempt petition in the landmark case of Nandini Sundar and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh.
• The Court clarified that the passing of a new State law, even when related to a matter previously ruled upon, cannot be equated with contempt unless it contradicts constitutional norms.
• This judgment highlights the boundaries of judicial review in legislative affairs and reaffirms the doctrine of separation of powers in Indian democracy.

Background to the Case

• In July 2011, the Supreme Court issued a significant order prohibiting the use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) by the Chhattisgarh government for anti-Maoist operations.
• The Court had ruled that recruiting inadequately trained and poorly paid SPOs for counter-insurgency was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which safeguard the right to equality and right to life, respectively.
• It also directed the withdrawal of all arms issued to SPOs and ordered the Union Government to cease funding their recruitment.

Legislative Response by Chhattisgarh

• Subsequent to the Court’s 2011 order, the Chhattisgarh government enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011.
• This law authorised the creation of an auxiliary force to support regular security forces in controlling insurgencies, with specific provisions to address the Court’s earlier concerns:

• Section 4(1) authorised auxiliary forces for non-frontline assistance.
• Section 5(2) ensured such personnel would not be deployed in direct combat.
• Mandatory training of six months and strict eligibility screening were introduced.

• This legislative move was challenged as being in violation of the 2011 judgment, leading to the contempt petition.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Contempt

• The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt allegations on the following grounds:

• Compliance with Prior Orders:
• The Court noted that all directions issued in 2011 were duly complied with by the Chhattisgarh government, including reports submitted to that effect.
• Legislative Competence and Validity:
• The Court held that legislatures, whether State or Parliament, possess plenary powers to enact laws as long as those laws are within their legislative competence and conform to constitutional mandates.
• A newly enacted law, by itself, cannot be deemed as contempt of Court unless it is shown to contradict the Constitution.
• Separation of Powers Doctrine:
• Citing precedents such as Indian Aluminium Co. vs State of Kerala (1996), the Court emphasised that judicial, legislative, and executive branches must maintain their functional boundaries.
• The Court reaffirmed that judicial review can only test a law's constitutionality, not the mere fact of its enactment.

Implications for Judicial Oversight and State Legislation

• This ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot obstruct legislatures from enacting laws unless such laws are proven unconstitutional.
• It acknowledges a legislature's right to respond to judicial pronouncements by drafting fresh laws that address previously flagged concerns.
• Furthermore, it also underscores how constitutional courts cannot act as supervisory bodies over the legislative process unless the outcome is ultra vires to the Constitution or lacks legislative competence.

Broader Significance

• Preserving Democratic Balance
• The judgment affirms that the Indian judiciary, while empowered to interpret laws and protect fundamental rights, must not undermine the legislative domain unless constitutional limits are breached.
• Legal Clarity for Contempt Cases
• It sets a precedent that enacting new legislation post-judicial pronouncement does not automatically amount to contempt, thereby offering clarity to both lawmakers and petitioners.
• Guidance for Future Law-making
• State governments can now confidently legislate on sensitive issues provided they incorporate judicial concerns and adhere to constitutional boundaries.