No contempt if Parliament, state legislature simply make laws: SC
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 like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers 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 state government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security force nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and SPOs.
The top court on May 15 said that the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of contempt.
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 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
India Today
21 minutes ago
- India Today
Gabbard revokes security clearances of 37 intel officials over politicization
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Tuesday she has revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former intelligence professionals, accusing them of 'politicizing and manipulating intelligence' against President Donald a statement posted on social media, Gabbard said the move was carried out at Trump's direction. 'This action was necessary to protect the integrity of our intelligence community from those who abused their access for partisan purposes,' she entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold. In DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) August 19, 2025advertisementThe dramatic step escalates Gabbard's months-long campaign against what she calls the 'weaponization' of US intelligence agencies. Last month, the Justice Department announced the formation of a strike force to evaluate her claims. Trump has seized on Gabbard's allegations, cheering her vow to refer former Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. He has repeatedly accused former President Barack Obama, without evidence, of leading a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016 to link him to Russia and undermine his candidacy. An Obama spokesperson dismissed the charges as 'bizarre' and 'a weak attempt at distraction.'The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a list of those whose clearances were revoked, but it was not immediately clear if all of them had served in official intelligence roles. Among the names were a former Obama National Security Council spokesperson and a senior Biden administration official currently serving as coordinator for global COVID-19 response. An ODNI spokesperson declined to comment on their controversy stems from a January 2017 assessment by US intelligence agencies that concluded Russia tried to influence the 2016 election by hacking, disinformation campaigns and online bot networks. The report said Moscow sought to harm Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump, though it found no evidence the effort changed actual vote outcomes. Russia has denied any blasted Gabbard's actions as baseless and politically driven. But she stood firm, saying: 'The American people deserve accountability. Those who twisted intelligence for partisan gain should not have access to classified information.'- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Revanth invokes Telugu pride, urges unity for Justice Reddy's VP bid
Hyderabad: Hours after the INDIA bloc announced former Supreme Court judge Justice B Sudershan Reddy as its vice-presidential candidate, chief minister A Revanth Reddy on Tuesday made an impassioned appeal to Telugu parties across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to rise above politics and rally behind the "son of the soil." "It is an election between saving the Constitution, reservations, and democracy, which Justice Reddy represents, versus CP Radhakrishnan, the BJP-led NDA's candidate who stands for changing the Constitution, abolishing reservations, and undermining democratic principles," Revanth said. Making it clear that Justice Reddy is an 'apolitical' candidate, Revanth urged leaders of all parties — TDP, YSRCP, BRS, AIMIM, Jana Sena, Left, and even BJP MPs from both states — to support him. "On behalf of the Telugu people, I appeal to every party to unite on one platform to save the Constitution, reservations, and democracy, and to uphold the self-respect of Telugus," he said. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Gold Rates Today in Hyderabad | Silver Rates Today in Hyderabad The CM highlighted Justice Reddy's humble beginnings in a Telugu farming family, his education at Osmania University, and his rise to serve as Chief Justice of various high courts and later as a judge of the Supreme Court. "He is a legal luminary and a constitutional expert who will safeguard not only the Constitution and democracy but also reservations, which are under attack from the BJP," he said. Revanth reminded that Justice Reddy had chaired the independent panel that studied Telangana's caste survey. "If he is elected vice-president, he will play a crucial role in getting 42% reservations for OBCs approved. He knows the survey in depth and has advised the state govt on ensuring justice for Backward Classes. He will be the strongest voice of OBCs in Parliament," he asserted. To questions on his role in finalising the candidature, Revanth said: "Justice Reddy is INDIA bloc's choice. He gave a presentation on caste survey analysis to MPs in Delhi, and they recognised his worth as a constitutional expert." Though both candidates are from the South, Revanth accused the BJP of trying to deepen north-south divides. "Congress and the INDIA bloc are fighting to unite the country. At least the 60 MPs — 42 in the Lok Sabha and 18 in the Rajya Sabha — from the two Telugu states must come together to support Justice Reddy," he said. Drawing on NTR's legacy Revanth also invoked former Andhra Pradesh CM NT Rama Rao's statesmanship. "I appeal to Chandrababu Naidu, K Chandrasekhar Rao, Jagan Mohan Reddy, Pawan Kalyan, Asaduddin Owaisi, and Left leaders to take inspiration from NTR, who refused to field a candidate against PV Narasimha Rao in Nandyal when Rao became prime minister. Let us protect the pride and honour of the Telugu people in the same spirit," he urged. The CM clarified that a decision on personally meeting or writing to party leaders would be taken after the INDIA bloc's candidate files nomination on Aug 21. "I will most likely attend the nomination rally of Justice Reddy in Delhi," he added. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Will give view on Prez reference; won't decide validity of TN guv verdict': Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India NEW DELHI: Keeping aside objections of Kerala and Tamil Nadu govts on the maintainability of the Presidential reference, Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would give its opinion on the President's 14 queries if it finds these raising important questions of law on SC's power to fix timelines for her and governors in granting, withholding or refusing assent to bills passed by assemblies. After hearing senior advocates K K Venugopal for Kerala and A M Singhvi for TN, a five-judge bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked, "Are you really serious in raising preliminary objections?" CJI said, "We are not deciding the validity of the (April 8) Tamil Nadu judgment (regarding its governor's role on bills). We are only deciding Presidential reference and will be giving an advisory opinion." Kant said, "We will first decide whether a question of law of public importance has been raised in the reference." Opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all, Mehta tells court Singhvi said SC cannot overturn the two-judge bench's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu case through an advisory opinion and that if the opinion expresses a view contrary to that expressed in the Tamil Nadu case, then there would be two sets of constitutional laws - one for TN on the governor's role on bills and the opinion applicable to all other states. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta cited a few judgments to argue that the opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all and can even overturn views expressed by a bench on similar issues. Both AG R Venkataramani and Mehta, supported by senior advocates Harish N Salve, N K Kaul and Maninder Singh, argued in support of the Presidential reference and said in the light of the two-judge bench's judgment, but without referring to the facts of that case, the President felt an authoritative pronouncement from SC was needed given that there had been a series of disjointed pronouncements on the core issue. Venkatramani's arguments outlined the Centre's unease over SC, through its April 8 judgment, foraying into the legislative domain and amending constitutional provisions on the roles of governors (Article 200) and the President (Article 201) in relation to their power to give or deny assent to bills passed by legislatures, and said the two-judge bench should have referred the constitutional issues to a five-judge bench as mandated by Article 145(3) of the Constitution and not ventured to decide them. By prescribing timelines, "SC looked upon the President as an ordinary statutory authority and asked her to give assent to a bill within a specified time without examining whether the bill is unconstitutional, against the national policy framed by the Union govt or against the national interest," the AG said. Venkataramani also faulted SC using its exclusive powers under Article 142 to mandate the President to seek advisory opinion of the court under Article 143 whenever she had doubts about constitutionality of a bill. "SC robbed the highest constitutional authority of the power to think, and decide the legality or constitutionality of a bill," he said, adding that another unthinkable part of the SC judgment was the use of Article 142 powers to grant 'deemed assent' to bills. Without referring to facts of the case where the TN governor had long delayed granting assent to bills, the bench asked the AG, "If the facts of a case on egregious delay (on the governor's part) comes for adjudication before a constitution bench of SC, can you suggest what should be the court's approach?" The AG said even if a constitution bench can examine the issues, under no circumstance could the court either amend the Constitution or assume the role constitutionally assigned to the governor to grant "deemed assent" to bills. "If this is permissible, then for every small mistake or delay, the states would approach SC for grant of deemed assent." Mehta supplemented the AG's arguments and said the CJI-led five-judge bench could keep the TN facts aside and give an ideal interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. "Some mistakes committed by a governor or a minister or anyone in a given case should not be the guiding factor for interpreting constitutional provisions," he said. The SG will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
