Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that enactment of a law by the Parliament or State Legislature does not amount to contempt of court unless it is declared unconstitutional. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh,(2025) Case ? 

• The case originated from two writ petitions filed in 2007 challenging the activities of the Salwa Judum movement in Chhattisgarh. The petitioners alleged that the Salwa Judum, a state-sponsored vigilante group formed to counter Maoist insurgency, was involved in serious human rights violations including killings, abductions, rapes and arson in Dantewada district.  
• The movement recruited Special Police Officers (SPOs) from local tribal communities and armed them to fight against Naxalites. 
• In 2011, the Supreme Court passed a comprehensive order directing the Chhattisgarh government to immediately cease using SPOs in anti-Maoist operations and disband groups like Salwa Judum. 
• The Court had also ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate incidents of violence and directed the state to provide security to former SPOs and rehabilitate affected persons. 
• Despite these directions, the Chhattisgarh government subsequently enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011. 
• The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging that this new legislation violated the Supreme Court's 2011 order and constituted contempt of court. 
• They argued that the Act essentially continued the same practices that the Court had prohibited, merely under a different name. 
• The petitioners also complained that the National Human Rights Commission had failed to comply with the Court's directions and that proper rehabilitation of victims had not been undertaken.  
• They sought enforcement of the Court's earlier orders and initiation of contempt proceedings against the state government for enacting the new law. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court firmly rejected the contention that enacting legislation could constitute contempt of court, emphasizing the fundamental principle of separation of powers.  
• The Court observed that every State Legislature possesses plenary powers to pass enactments, and such laws retain legal force unless declared unconstitutional by a competent court. 
• The bench clarified that while courts have interpretative powers to resolve doubts about legislative validity, this authority does not extend to treating the exercise of legislative functions as contempt of court. 
• The Court stressed that the core of legislative function includes the power to enact, amend, or even validate laws that have been struck down by constitutional courts. 
• Highlighting the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court noted that legislatures can pass laws to remove the basis of judicial decisions or modify struck-down enactments to comply with constitutional requirements. The bench emphasised that any legislative enactment can only be challenged on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not through contempt proceedings. 
• The Court disposed of both the writ petitions and contempt petition, finding that the original prayers had been crystallised in the 2011 order and compliance reports had been filed. 
• It concluded that the matters no longer survived for further judicial consideration, while maintaining that constitutional challenges to legislation must follow established legal procedures rather than contempt proceedings. 

What is Salwa Judum ? 

• Salwa Judum was formed in 2005 as a state-sponsored vigilante movement against the Naxalites, a far-left movement with Maoist ideology in some states in rural India that is designated by the government as a terrorist organisation on account of its violent activities. 
• Meaning "Peace March" or "Purification Hunt" in the language of the Gonds, the Salwa Judum was a militia specifically mobilised with the intention of countering the Naxalite violence in the Chhattisgarh region. 
• The militia consisted of local tribal youth, who received support and training from the Government of Chhattisgarh. Naxalite. 
• When the corporations Tata and Essar began their projects in 2005 to mine iron ore, the state launched Salwa Judum, evacuating 644 villages under the pretext of Maoist fear. At least 350,000 people were displaced.  
• The movement recruited Special Police Officers (SPOs) from local tribal communities and armed them to fight against Naxalites in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. However, the initiative was highly controversial due to allegations of human rights violations, including killings, abductions, rapes, and arson committed by Salwa Judum activists against local tribal populations. 

Supreme Court's Directions on Salwa Judum (2011) 

• Immediate Cessation of SPO Operations: The State of Chhattisgarh was directed to immediately cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any manner or form in activities aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities. 
• Ban on Central Funding: The Union of India was ordered to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/Naxalite groups. 
• Recovery of Firearms: The State was directed to make every effort to recall all firearms issued to any SPOs, whether current or former, along with all accessories and accoutrements, including guns, rifles, launchers of whatever calibre. 
• Protection of Former SPOs: Chhattisgarh was ordered to provide appropriate security and undertake necessary measures within constitutional bounds to protect the lives of those who had been employed as SPOs or given initial orders of selection or appointment from all forces, including Maoists/Naxalites. 
• Prevention of Vigilante Groups: The State was directed to take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, that seek to take law into private hands, act unconstitutionally or violate human rights, including investigation of all previously inappropriately investigated instances of alleged criminal activities and filing appropriate FIRs with diligent prosecution. 
• CBI Investigation: The Central Bureau of Investigation was ordered to immediately take over investigation of incidents of violence in March 2011 in villages Morpalli, Tadmetla and Timmapuram in Dantewada District, and incidents of violence against Swami Agnivesh and his companions during their visit to Chhattisgarh in March 2011. 

Constitutional Doctrines and Principles Applied 

• Doctrine of Separation of Powers  
  • Extensively discussed as the core principle governing legislative functions 
  • Applied to establish that legislatures have plenary powers to enact laws 
  • Used to demonstrate the principle of checks and balances under the Constitution 
• Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity  
  • Identified as the "twin prongs" for challenging any legislative enactment 
  • Established as the only permissible grounds for assailing the validity of legislation 
  • Distinguished from contempt proceedings as the appropriate legal remedy