No contempt if Parliament, legislatures simply make laws: Supreme Court
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others.
The contempt plea alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with its 2011 directions to stop support to vigilante groups such as Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists.
The petition contended that there has been contempt of the order of the apex court as the Chhattisgarh government has legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist/Naxal violence and legalising existing SPOs by inducting them as members.
Besides accusing the Chhattisgarh government of not acknowledging the directions on Salwa Judum, the petitioners said instead of "desisting" from using SPOs and disarming them, the State government passed the "Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011" regularising all SPOs with effect from the date of the top court order on July 5, 2011.
They alleged that the State government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security forces nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and SPOs.
The top court on May 15 said the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of contempt.
Delicate balance
The top court said in order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained.
"Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a constitutional court, the said enactment would have the force of law." The Bench added, "However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law." Considering the situation prevailing in Chhattisgarh over decades, the Bench outlined the need for "specific steps" to bring peace and rehabilitation in the affected areas through coordinated measures of the State and the Central government.
"It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen," the court said.
Judiciary is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by Parliament or any state legislature, the Bench added.
"However, the interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court," it noted.
The verdict pointed out that central to the legislative function was the power of the legislative organ to enact and amend laws.
"Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a court, including this court, for simply making the law," the Bench said.
The top court underlined the legislature's powers to pass a law; to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a constitutional court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a constitutional court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment.
"This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers." The order went on, "Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Bihar CEO asks voters to file claims with Aadhaar after 65 lakh names deleted from draft rolls
PATNA: Days after the Election Commission published details of over 65 lakh names deleted during the first phase of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar, Vinod Singh Gunjiyal, issued a notification asking the aggrieved electors to file their claims by using their Aadhaar cards. The development assumed significance in the wake of the Supreme Court's interim order asking the Election Commission to accept Aadhaar cards as evidence to challenge the deletion of names of electors from draft electoral rolls published on August 1. 'All such voters, who are not included in the draft list, can get information about their entry in this list along with the reason through their EPIC number. The list related to such voters who are not included in the draft list published on 01.08.2025 has also been displayed at all block offices, panchayat offices, municipal bodies' offices and polling stations, through which such voters can get information and information related to their entry along with the reason. Dissatisfied persons can submit their claim with a copy of their Aadhaar card,' CEO, Bihar, said. In his order issued on Monday evening, the CEO, Bihar said, 'In light of the interim order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2025 in writ petition (s) (Civil) No.(5)640/2025 (Association of Democratic Reforms Vs Election Commission of India) it is hereby notified that the list of such electors whose names were included in the electoral rolls of the year 2025 (before the draft roll published on August 1, 2025) along with reasons (deceased/permanently shifted/absent/repeated entry) has been published on the websites of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar and all District Election Officers of the State of Bihar.'
The Wire
15 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Kerala Precedent: How Article 356 Became a Weapon of Cold War Politics
Newly declassified British intelligence files have confirmed coordinated CIA-UK operations with Congress leaders that led to the downfall of Kerala's 1959 Communist government. EMS Namboodiripad. On July 31, 1959, the Nehru Government invoked Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss a state government for the first time against a non-Congress administration. E.M.S. Namboodiripad, who had served as Kerala's chief minister from April 5, 1957, saw his Communist-led government terminated after 27 months in power. What followed was not just a change of government, but a constitutional precedent that would haunt Indian federalism for decades. For 65 years, the story of this dismissal has been contested territory. To supporters of the Vimochana Samaram (Liberation Struggle), the mass agitation that culminated in the dismissal represented a popular uprising against Communist overreach. To the Left, it was a carefully orchestrated conspiracy involving domestic and communal opposition with the help of foreign agents, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The story has taken a dramatic turn and become more intriguing with historian Paul McGarr's latest revelations. Drawing on recently declassified British intelligence files, McGarr's research reveals that the United Kingdom's MI5 and MI6, along with the CIA, mounted covert operations in coordination with senior Congress leaders and India's Intelligence Bureau to bring down the Namboodiripad administration. McGarr's findings reveal that when Kerala began gaining international attention as "The Indian Yenan" – a reference to the famous Chinese Communist revolutionary base – British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan became alarmed and authorised a "Special Political Action" program specifically designed to undermine the Communist Party of India's growing influence in the state. The operation included a covert training scheme that brought Congress leaders and union organisers to the UK for intensive anti-Communist instruction. The plan had the approval of IB chief B.N. Mullik and was politically green-lit by Union home minister Govind Ballabh Pant and Union finance minister Morarji Desai. Most significantly, the British archives reveal the careful diplomatic manoeuvering required to secure Indian government cooperation: "Having met Govind Ballabh Pant, India's Minister for Home Affairs, Morarji Desai, the Union Finance Minister, and Nehru himself, Lord Home reported back to London that Pant and Desai were firmly in favour. Nehru proved less enthusiastic. The Indian premier did, however, concede that it would be useful for the Indian government to be able to call on UK intelligence assistance in certain circumstances." The trained operatives were then "infiltrated into the Indian National Trade Union Congress," bolstering its ability to counter CPI-aligned unions. This created what McGarr describes as sustained political pressure that complemented CIA funding efforts. "The people of India have the right to know the truth about the 1959 dismissal of Kerala's first Communist government. I believe that much is still remaining hidden about the Vimochana Samaram, which was shaped not only by local politics but also by external interventions that influenced the course of democracy in postcolonial India. The newly revealed UK involvement is almost unbelievable, but surprisingly new," observed eminent political scientist G. Gopakumar. Ballot box Communists The undivided CPI's electoral victory in Kerala in 1957 created one of the earliest democratically elected Communist governments in the world. It was only the second revolutionary government ever elected democratically, after communist success in San Marino from 1945 to 1957. This democratic path to socialism sent ripples across the Cold War world, where the ideological battle between capitalism and communism typically played out through revolution or military intervention, not electoral politics. In Washington and London, policymakers watched apprehensively as Namboodiripad's government began implementing the radical reforms that had brought it to power. The Communist government's troubles began with its very success in implementing promised reforms. The Kerala Education Bill of 1957, piloted by state education minister Joseph Mundassery, aimed to bring the state's schools under tighter government regulation. The legislation required that teacher appointments in grant-aided private schools – many run by Christian churches and caste organisations – be made from government-approved lists. For the powerful Syrian Catholic Church and organisations like the Nair Service Society, these reforms represented an existential threat to decades-old control over education and patronage networks. The changes would have significantly affected the livelihoods and autonomy of thousands of teachers while reducing the influence of religious and community organisations over educational institutions. Even more explosive were the agrarian reforms championed by revenue minister K.R. Gouri. The legislation sought to confer ownership rights to long-term tenant cultivators, fix ceilings on landholdings, and prevent arbitrary eviction of tenants. For the landed elites – particularly the Nair and Syrian Christian communities who had dominated Kerala's rural economy for generations – these reforms were unacceptable. The gathering storm Opposition to the EMS government began coalescing almost immediately after the bills were introduced. The Syrian Catholic Church mobilised its considerable resources against the education bill, with Church leaders framing the legislation as an attack on religious freedom and minority rights. Simultaneously, the Nair Service Society, under Mannathu Padmanabhan's leadership, began organising against the land reforms. The Indian National Congress, smarting from its electoral defeat, provided political coordination for what would become a formidable opposition coalition. The protests, initially peaceful, gradually escalated. The turning point came on June 13, 1959, at Angamaly, where police firing on protesters resulted in seven deaths. Similar incidents followed across the state, creating a cycle of violence and political mobilisation that would ultimately provide the justification for central intervention. Evidence of foreign involvement The question of foreign involvement in the Vimochana Samaram has been the subject of scholarly investigation for decades. CIA funding of the Congress party has been documented on multiple occasions. The most significant admission came from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served as US Ambassador to India in the 1970s. In his memoir A Dangerous Place, Moynihan revealed that the CIA had secretly funded the Indian National Congress on multiple occasions, including operations targeting Kerala's Communist government. "In the 1950s, as the role of world policeman shifted from Britain to the United States, the CIA overthrew several democratically elected governments in the Third World, often with extreme bloodshed,' explains Thomas Isaac, CPIM leader and Kerala's former finance minister. Yet in former British colonies like British Guiana, India, and Iran, it was still British intelligence that held sway in the early years. The coup in British Guiana was initiated by Britain itself. 'Now, for the first time, concrete records reveal Britain's interventions in Kerala—until now known only through the memoirs of B.N. Mullik, then head of India's Intelligence Bureau," says Issac who co-authored the book Toppling the First Ministry: Kerala, the CIA, and the Struggle for Social Justice, along with Richard W. Franke. While the CIA's role in funnelling money to Congress politicians and anti-communist trade unions has been hinted at in past memoirs and research, McGarr's work adds detailed evidence of Britain's parallel campaign. The Cold War context Understanding the foreign dimension requires recognising Kerala's significance in Cold War calculations. A democratically elected Communist government in an Indian state represented a dangerous precedent from the perspective of Western policymakers who saw containment of Communism as a strategic imperative. Internal CIA documents, some later declassified, show the extraordinary level of attention Kerala commanded in Washington's intelligence apparatus. The agency produced detailed intelligence assessments tracking political developments in what internal communications referred to as "India's Communist State." The fear was not just about Kerala itself, but about the precedent it might set. If Communism could succeed through democratic means in one corner of the world, what would prevent similar outcomes elsewhere in the developing world? This concern shaped Western intelligence approaches to the crisis. The constitutional precedent On July 31, 1959, on the advice of the Union Cabinet, President Rajendra Prasad invoked Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss Kerala's elected chief minister E.M.S. Namboodiripad and his cabinet, and ordered the dissolution of the state assembly. The decision came after months of escalating protests and violence, setting a precedent for using the provision against non-Congress administrations that would be repeatedly invoked in subsequent decades. Prime Minister Nehru, despite his initial reluctance as revealed in the British archives, ultimately accepted the advice of his Cabinet to dismiss the EMS government. The justification was the breakdown of law and order, but critics argued that the violence had been manufactured to create grounds for constitutional intervention. The dismissal of Kerala's Communist government established what would become known as the "Kerala precedent" – the use of Article 356 to remove an elected state government facing political opposition based on ideological grounds. While Article 356 had been used before in Punjab (1951) and PEPSU (1953), the Kerala case marked its first deployment against a Communist government and set the template for future political misuse of this constitutional provision. Over the following decades, Article 356 would be invoked repeatedly against state governments that were inconvenient to the party in power at the Center, fundamentally altering the federal balance envisioned by the Constitution's framers. Historical reassessment Recent research has begun to provide a more nuanced understanding of the Vimochana Samaram, moving beyond simple narratives of popular uprising or foreign conspiracy. The evidence suggests a complex interaction of genuine domestic grievances, opportunistic political calculation and foreign intelligence operations. The concerns of various Kerala communities about the Communist government's reforms were real and significant. The education bill openly threatened the autonomy of religious institutions, while the land reforms challenged established property relations. These fears of the elite provided the raw material for political mobilisation. However, the systematic coordination of this opposition, the sophisticated propaganda campaigns, and the strategic timing of escalations suggest influences beyond purely local concerns. The documented CIA funding and British intelligence cooperation indicate that foreign powers saw an opportunity to roll back a dangerous precedent and took it. McGarr's research reveals that the Kerala operation was not an isolated case. It mirrored interventions in other newly independent nations where Western powers feared communist electoral success could become a model for the developing world. The Kerala episode provides crucial historical context for contemporary debates about foreign interference in domestic politics. The techniques revealed in declassified documents – covert funding of political movements, sophisticated information campaigns, coordination between foreign operatives and domestic actors – bear striking similarities to modern concerns about electoral manipulation. Perhaps most importantly, the Kerala case demonstrates how constitutional provisions designed to protect democracy can be turned against it when political will is lacking. The misuse of Article 356, beginning with the Kerala precedent, would become one of the most contentious issues in Indian federalism. The unfinished story As archives continue to open and more documents become available, our understanding of the Kerala episode continues to evolve. The full scope of foreign involvement may never be completely known, as intelligence operations by their nature leave incomplete paper trails scattered across different countries and agencies. What remains clear is that the dismissal of Kerala's first Communist government represents a watershed moment in Indian democracy – a moment when the principles of federalism and electoral sovereignty came into conflict with Cold War imperatives and domestic political calculations. The Vimochana Samaram thus stands as both a historical case study and a contemporary warning about the fragility of democratic institutions. 'If the fresh revelations are true, it amounts [to] a Union government conspiring with foreign agents against one of its provinces, a rare moment in political history,' says Dr. Gopakumar. As India continues to grapple with questions of federalism and constitutional governance, the lessons of 1959 remain relevant. The Kerala precedent serves as a cautionary tale about the price of sacrificing democratic principles for immediate political advantage – a price that, once paid, may take generations to recover. M.P. Basheer, a journalist and writer based in Trivandrum, was the executive editor of Kerala's first TV news channel, Indiavision. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka Assembly session: BJP questions benefits of Greater Bengaluru Authority; Bill passed
Opposition BJP members in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday questioned the advantages provided by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) to the city and termed the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Amendment) Bill, 2025, 'undemocratic and against the spirit of the decentralisation of powers to urban local bodies'. The intention of the GBA, headed by the Chief Minister, was to control five city corporations and destroy their autonomous powers, claimed Leader of the Opposition R. Ashok. Speaking on the Bill, Mr. Ashok, C.N. Aswanth Narayan, S. Suresh Kumar, Satish Reddy, S. Muniraju, Ravi Subramanya, and C.K. Ramamurthy (all BJP) termed the formation of Greater Bengaluru and the division of the erstwhile single city corporation into five city corporations as 'unconstitutional'. Instead of empowerment, GBA has disempowered the local bodies, they claimed. Who heads corporations Noting that Mayors head city corporations, BJP members questioned the necessity of setting up the GBA headed by the Chief Minister. Mr. Ahsok said the GBA aimed at centralisation of powers in the hands of the Chief Minister and Ministers, and demanded the withdrawal of the Bill. Mr. Subramanya said the division of the city into five corporations led to imbalances in revenue generation and development among civic bodies. Mr. Reddy said there was no clarity about the GBA and the Bill, and already the Commissioner has issued notices to 30,000 households for paying additional taxes. The Commissioner had not held a single meeting with the city MLAs to address the grievances, such as those concerning the e-Khata. The power and water connections have been denied to residents residing in small buildings having no occupancy certificates. Meanwhile, Mr. Muniraju claimed that Assembly constituencies represented by the BJP have now fallen into different corporations. For instance, the Dasarahalli constituency areas have come under two city corporations, which led to confusion among the public, he said. The Bill was passed in the House later. Why amendment Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, who also holds the Bengaluru Development portfolio, said some people had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the court, which has been rejected. However, an amendment had to be carried out to clarify that 'the GBA will not interfere in the functioning of the corporations', to avoid any confusion in future. The PIL had claimed that the government was planning to take control of the corporations. 'Our intention is that the Mayor and councillors must have full powers in the corporation as per the Constitution,' Mr. Shivakumar said. He noted that Mahadevapura contributes the highest taxes in Bengaluru, and there was not much collection in central areas.
