The Hindu: Published on 4th July 2025:
Why in News?
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a writ and contempt petition filed in relation to the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011, in the backdrop of its landmark 2011 judgment in Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The Court clarified that the enactment of a State law cannot automatically be considered contempt of court, even if passed after a judicial directive.
Background:
In 2011, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh and the Centre to:
Stop appointing and using Special Police Officers (SPOs) to counter Maoist insurgency.
Recall all arms from SPOs.
Cease all support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos.
It ruled that the deployment of ill-trained, poorly paid SPOs violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life).
In response, the State enacted a law — Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011 — modifying the SPO system and formalizing it under more regulated terms.
Key Issues Raised:
- Petitioners claimed the new Act violated the spirit of the 2011 judgment, hence amounted to contempt of court.
- The Act provided for the constitution of an auxiliary force to assist security forces, not lead operations.
- It included screening committees, mandatory training, and frontline deployment restrictions to address previous Court concerns.
Supreme Court's Clarification (2024–25 Decision):
1- No Contempt:
The Court found no willful disobedience. The State had complied with all 2011 directives.
Compliance reports were duly submitted.
2- Legislative Powers Intact:
A State legislature has plenary powers to make laws, unless such laws are:
Outside its legislative competence, or
Violative of the Constitution.
3- Doctrine of Separation of Powers Upheld:
Legislatures can enact laws that replace the basis of a court decision, validate a law previously struck down, or reinterpret the application.
Passing such a law is not contempt unless it directly contravenes constitutional principles.
4- Reference Case:
Indian Aluminium Co. vs. State of Kerala (1996) was cited, where the SC had emphasized constitutional balance between Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive.
Conclusion:
1- The Supreme Court cannot stop a State from passing a new law unless:
- It violates constitutional provisions, or
- Is beyond the legislative competence of that State.
2- The 2011 ruling remains a benchmark for protection of rights, but State governments retain legislative autonomy to address issues via revised frameworks — provided they meet constitutional tests.
3- The rejection of contempt plea reinforces judicial respect for legislative intent and the separation of powers in a constitutional democracy.
