Context: The Supreme Court held that Chhattisgarh’s law on auxiliary forces did not violate its 2011 order banning Special Police Officers (SPOs), clarifying that valid legislation cannot be treated as contempt of Court.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Concept of Separation of powers.
Mains: Nandini Sundar and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh case judgement and Doctrine of Separation of powers.
In the Nandini Sundar and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh case, the Supreme Court dismissed a contempt petition against the State of Chhattisgarh for enacting the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011.
The petitioners alleged that the State violated the Supreme Court’s 2011 order that prohibited the use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Maoist operations.
Background: The 2011 Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court in July 2011 issued an order stating that :
- The State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities.
- The State was directed to prevent the operation of groups like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos.
- The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists.
- The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution
Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011.
Key Provisions of Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act 2011:
- Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted ‘to aid and assist the security forces’ in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc.
- The members of the auxiliary force shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces.
- The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act.
- Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee).
A petition was filed claiming that the enactment was not in consonance with the Court’s order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the Contempt petition stating that:
- The state of Chhattisgarh had complied with all directives from the 2011 ruling.
- Every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution.
- Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt.
- The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy.
- The judiciary cannot invalidate legislation on contempt grounds unless the law is proven to be beyond legislative competence, or violative of the Constitution.
In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary).