Context:

In a landmark reaffirmation of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that laws passed by Parliament or State legislatures cannot be treated as contempt of court, even if they appear to contradict prior judicial directions.

Background:

The ruling came as the apex court disposed of a 2012 contempt petition filed by noted sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar, along with other petitioners. The plea alleged that the Chhattisgarh government had violated the Supreme Court’s 2011 order directing it to:

• Cease support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum
• Stop arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Maoist operations
• Vacate schools and ashrams occupied by security forces
• Compensate victims affected by SPO operations

Instead of complying, the Chhattisgarh government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, regularizing the SPOs and authorizing their integration into an auxiliary armed force.

Key Observations by the Court:

1. Legislative Powers Are Plenary

“Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment. So long as the said enactment has not been declared ultra vires the Constitution... it would have the force of law.”

The Court underscored that law-making is a sovereign function, and the existence of a court order does not negate a legislature's right to legislate.

2. Law-Making Cannot Be Contempt

“The passing of an enactment subsequent to a court order by the legislature cannot be an act of contempt.”

3. Upholding the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

The Court stressed the importance of maintaining a delicate constitutional balance among the three pillars of democracy—legislature, executive, and judiciary.

“To ensure that the rule of law permeates and fulfils constitutional objectives... the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained.”

Broader Implications of the Ruling:

·        Reinforces Legislative Supremacy: The ruling is a reaffirmation that legislatures have sovereign law-making powers, and these cannot be questioned through contempt proceedings unless a law is declared unconstitutional.

·        Clarifies Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction: This decision narrows the scope of contempt of court, making it clear that legislative responses to court rulings—however contentious—are not inherently punishable.

·        Strengthens Constitutional Remedies: Petitioners and public interest litigants are reminded that the proper method to challenge an unconstitutional law is via Article 226 (High Court) or Article 32 (Supreme Court), not through contempt petitions.

Conclusion:

The court's ruling highlights the importance of respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. While the court can review the constitutionality of laws, it cannot hold the legislative process in contempt. This ruling has significant implications for the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature in India.