Background of the Case
- Petitioners: Nandini Sundar (sociologist) and others filed a contempt petition (2012).
- Target: Chhattisgarh government’s alleged non-compliance with the SC’s 2011 order.
- The SC in 2011 had directed the State to disband vigilante groups (like Salwa Judum) and stop arming tribals as Special Police Officers (SPOs).
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Judiciary)
Petitioners’ Allegations
- The State bypassed the SC’s directions by:
- Enacting Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 — legalising SPOs.
- Not vacating schools/ashrams occupied by security forces.
- Failing to compensate victims affected by Salwa Judum and SPO actions.
Supreme Court’s Ruling (May 15, 2024)
- Law made by legislature ≠ contempt of court.
- Legislatures have plenary powers to make laws.
- Unless a law is declared unconstitutional, it remains valid and cannot be equated with defiance of court orders.
- Contempt plea dismissed.
Key Judicial Observations
- Balance of powers must be maintained between judiciary and legislature.
- A law passed post-court order is not contempt unless:
- It directly disobeys the order.
- It is declared ultra vires the Constitution.
- Remedy against an unconstitutional law lies in challenging it in a constitutional court, not through contempt proceedings.
Broader Concerns & Directions
- Recognised the prolonged unrest in Chhattisgarh due to Maoist violence.
- Urged specificpeace and rehabilitation measures by:
- State government
- Union government
- Cited Article 315: Responsibility lies with both governments to ensure law and order and welfare of residents.
Legal and Constitutional Significance
- Reiterates legislative supremacy in its domain unless judicially struck down.
- Clarifies that legislative action isn’t inherently contemptuous of earlier court orders.
- Strengthens separation of powers and checks and balances in governance.
