SC: Legislatures Cannot Be Held in Contempt for Enacting Laws
New Delhi, June 4 – The Supreme Court has ruled that the act of legislating — whether by Parliament or a state legislature — cannot amount to contempt of court, even if such legislation appears to counter a judicial directive. The ruling came in response to a 2012 contempt petition filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others.
The petition alleged that the Chhattisgarh Government had defied the apex court's 2011 judgment, which directed the state to dismantle armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and disarm Special Police Officers (SPOs) used in anti-Maoist operations. Instead, the state passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which effectively gave statutory recognition to SPOs and reconstituted them as part of an auxiliary police force.
The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made it clear that enacting a law — even in the wake of a court verdict — is a legislative function and cannot be construed as contempt. “Any law passed by a legislature holds the force of law unless declared unconstitutional or invalid by a competent constitutional court,” the bench observed.
The Court stressed that it is not within the judiciary's interpretive role to consider legislative acts as contemptuous. It explained that legislatures have the authority to pass laws, repeal judgments by altering the legal basis, or amend statutes to align with constitutional requirements — all within the doctrine of separation of powers.
The judgment further emphasized that the proper way to challenge the 2011 law is by filing a petition questioning its constitutional validity or legislative competence, rather than pursuing contempt proceedings.
Addressing the broader context of unrest in Chhattisgarh, the Court urged both the State and Central Governments to take coordinated steps to restore peace and rehabilitate those affected by years of violence. “It is the constitutional duty of both the State and the Union, in light of Article 315, to ensure the safety and rehabilitation of residents impacted by conflict from any quarter,” the order said.
