No Contempt If Legislature Simply Enacts Law: Supreme Court Reaffirms Separation Of Powers

The Court made the observations while disposing of a long-pending contempt petition filed in 2012 by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others.

The Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that unless a law enacted by the legislature is declared unconstitutional or ultra vires by a competent constitutional court, its passage cannot be viewed as an act of contempt, even if it is perceived to contradict judicial directions.

“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,” the Court said, underlining that the legislative organ’s core function includes enacting and amending laws.

Background of the Case

The contempt petition stemmed from the Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment directing the Chhattisgarh government to cease support for vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and to disarm Special Police Officers (SPOs) recruited to fight Maoist insurgents.

The petitioners alleged that the State government had deliberately undermined these directions by enacting the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which regularised SPOs and authorized the formation of an auxiliary force to assist in anti-Naxal operations.

The petitioners argued that the legislation was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Court’s order, thereby amounting to contempt. They further submitted that the State had not complied with several aspects of the Court’s ruling, including vacating occupied school buildings and providing compensation to victims of Salwa Judum and SPO violence.

SC Verdict: Legislative Action Not Contempt

Rejecting the contempt allegations, the Supreme Court observed that the enactment of a law, even one passed after a judicial pronouncement, cannot be equated with contempt unless declared invalid through appropriate legal proceedings.

“Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,” the Court said.

The Bench further clarified that judicial interpretation and adjudication of the validity of laws fall within the judiciary’s domain, but cannot extend to labeling the exercise of legislative functions as contempt of court.

“The interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court,” it emphasized.

Rule of Law and Constitutional Balance

The Court stressed that the foundational principle of constitutional democracy is the delicate balance of power among the three organs of the state, legislature, executive, and judiciary. It reiterated that while courts have the power to test laws on grounds of legislative competence and constitutional validity, they cannot infringe on the law-making powers of the legislature.

“This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours,” the Court noted, adding that the principle of checks and balances remains a vital aspect of governance under the Constitution.

The Bench observed that if any party believes a law to be unconstitutional, the appropriate legal remedy lies in challenging it on the grounds of legislative competence or constitutional invalidity, not through contempt proceedings.

Rehabilitation and Peace in Chhattisgarh

Recognizing the long-standing violence in Chhattisgarh, the Court underscored the duty of both the State and the Union governments to take coordinated measures for peace and rehabilitation in affected areas.

“It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India… to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,” the Court said.