While concluding the long-pending Salwa Judum case from 2007, the Supreme Court of India made a significant observation regarding the powers of legislatures. It stated that the act of passing a law—whether by Parliament or a State Legislature—cannot be considered contempt of court simply because it follows a prior judicial order.
The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, clarified that a legislature merely performing its lawmaking duties does not amount to disobeying or undermining the authority of the judiciary. “The enactment of a law after a court ruling is simply a legislative function,” the judges said. “Unless it is proven that such a law is unconstitutional or legally flawed, it cannot be viewed as an act of contempt.”
This came in response to a plea arguing that the Chhattisgarh government had committed contempt of court by passing the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which allegedly violated a previous Supreme Court order. The Court rejected this argument, affirming that State Legislatures have full constitutional authority to enact laws, which remain valid until struck down by a competent constitutional court.
The bench emphasized that while courts can interpret laws and examine their validity, they cannot treat the lawmaking process itself as contempt, even if the legislation appears to contradict an earlier ruling. That would interfere with the core principle of separation of powers.
According to the Court, legislatures have the right to make, amend, or even validate laws that might have been affected by earlier judicial decisions. They can modify or reframe laws to align with constitutional principles or address the reasons a previous law was struck down. This, the Court noted, is fundamental to a functioning constitutional democracy and must be respected to maintain the balance between the legislative and judicial branches of the government.
