Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  THE HINDU

Context:

The Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court.

About Nandini Sundar Case

The case of Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh addresses the controversial use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in counter-insurgency operations against Maoists in Chhattisgarh.

Core Issue => Chhattisgarh was employing inadequately paid and ill-trained Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist activities.

Supreme Court's July 2011 Order 

• The State government must stop using SPOs in any activities directly or indirectly aimed at controlling or eliminating Maoist activities.
• All firearms issued to SPOs must be recalled by the State.
• The State must take all measures to prevent the operation of any group, including Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos.
• Union Government's Role => The Union of India must cease using its funds to support the recruitment of SPOs for counter-insurgency activities against Maoists.
• Constitutional Violation => The Court concluded that appointing inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs for checking Maoism violates Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.

Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act 2011

Following the Supreme Court's July 2011 order, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011.

Purpose of the Act => Section 4(1) of the Act states that an auxiliary force will be formed to 'aid and assist the security forces' to maintain public order and combat Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency.

New Provisions

• Section 5(2) mandates that members of the auxiliary force will 'not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation' and will always work under the supervision of security forces.
• Compulsory training for a minimum period of six months.
• Only those SPOs who meet the prescribed eligibility criteria are to be inducted into the auxiliary force after screening.

Legislative Intent => The State Legislature aimed to address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court regarding the training, deployment, and compensation of the forces involved.

Contempt of Court Petition and Its Rejection

A contempt petition was filed, arguing that the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011, was not in consonance with the Supreme Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court.

Petitioner's Argument => The petitioners argued that the State's new enactment evaded the spirit of the July 2011 order, thus constituting contempt.

The Supreme Court rejected the contempt petition for key reasons:

• Compliance by State => The Court acknowledged that Chhattisgarh had complied with the directions issued in the July 2011 order and submitted the necessary compliance reports.
• Legislative Power and Separation of Powers => The Court affirmed that every State Legislature possesses plenary powers to pass an enactment, provided it is not declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution.
• No Contempt for Enactment => The Court clarified that any law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be considered an act of contempt. A legislature has the power to pass a law to remove the basis of a judgment or to validate a law that a Constitutional Court has struck down. This principle is fundamental to the doctrine of separation of powers in a constitutional democracy.

Grounds for Challenging Legislation => The Court emphasized that a piece of legislation can only be challenged on two grounds:

• Legislative Competence: Whether the legislature has the authority to make that law.
• Constitutional Validity: Whether the law violates any part of the Constitution.

Maintaining Delicate Balance => Quoting Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court restated that courts must maintain the delicate balance designed by the Constitution among the three sovereign functionaries (Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary).

• State Legislatures possess plenary powers to enact laws on subjects within their domain, provided these laws do not contradict the Constitution.

Must Read Articles: 

Supreme Court Plenary Powers

Source: 

THE HINDU