Background of the Case
- Issue: Use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) and state-supported vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos in counter-Maoist operations in Chhattisgarh.
- Petitioner: Activist Nandini Sundar and others challenged the constitutional validity and human rights implications of arming untrained civilians.
- Key Legal Focus: Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity).
Relevance : GS 2(Constitution , Polity ) , GS 3(Internal Security)
2011 Supreme Court Judgment Highlights (Original Writ Order)
- Dated July 5, 2011.
- Directed the State of Chhattisgarh to:
- Cease appointing and using SPOs in counter-insurgency roles.
- Recall all firearms issued to SPOs.
- Shut down operations of groups like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos.
- Directed the Union of India to stop funding SPO recruitment.
- Held the use of inadequately trained and armed civilians in internal conflict as:
- Unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 & 21.
- An abdication of the State’s responsibility to provide professional policing.
Chhattisgarh’s Legislative Response
- Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011 was passed after the SC order.
- Created a new force to aid regular forces, but with stricter checks.
- Key Provisions:
- Recruitment only through a screening committee.
- SPOs must meet eligibility standards.
- Mandatory training of at least 6 months.
- Auxiliary force members not to be deployed at front-line positions.
- State claimed that this addressed SC’s concerns.
Contempt Petition: What Was Alleged?
- Petitioners claimed:
- The new Act violated the spirit of the 2011 SC judgment.
- The Act was a backdoor attempt to reintroduce SPOs under a different name.
- Therefore, it amounted to contempt of court.
Supreme Court’s 2024 Ruling on Contempt (Disposal of Petition)
- Held that passing a new Act by the Legislature does not amount to contempt.
- Contempt relief was rejected for the following reasons:
1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
- Legislature is constitutionally empowered to pass new laws unless:
- They are beyond legislative competence, or
- They are violative of the Constitution.
- Making laws—even in response to court judgments—is not contempt, but an exercise of legislative power.
2. Judicial Review vs Contempt
- Courts may review the constitutionality of such laws.
- But until a law is declared unconstitutional, it cannot be deemed contemptuous.
3. Compliance Consideration
- The Court noted compliance with all directions from the 2011 order.
- Progress reports were submitted by the State of Chhattisgarh.
Legal Doctrines & Case Linkages
- Separation of Powers: Courts cannot stop a legislature from passing a law unless it violates the Constitution.
- Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala (1996):
- Emphasized balance between legislature, executive, and judiciary.
- Judicial Review remains the only tool to test the law—not contempt jurisdiction.
