Salwa Judum case: Legislative workaround and limits of contempt power
The contempt plea claimed that the Chhattisgarh government failed to comply with the 2011 order to stop open backing of vigilante groups like the Salwa Judum, and instead went ahead and armed tribal youths in the fight against Maoists. It said there had been a clear contempt of the SC order when the state government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which legalised arming tribals in the form of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the war against Maoists.
The petitioners further submitted that instead of disarming SPOs, which was a key constituent of the SC's 2011 order, the Chhattisgarh government legalised the practice of arming them. They also argued that the victims of the Salwa Judum movement had not been adequately compensated.
In the latest ruling of May 15, the Supreme Court said the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 does not constitute a contempt of court per se, and that the balance between 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 said. If any party wants that the legislation be struck down for being unconstitutional, the legal remedies would have to be presented before an appropriate constitutional court, the bench noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Electoral rolls can never be static': SC says Bihar SIR 'voter-friendly'
Observing that electoral rolls cannot remain "static" and there is bound to be a revision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters' list was in fact 'voter-friendly and not exclusionary.' The Supreme Court also said that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit.(ANI/File) As the row over the SIR which has been challenged in the top court escalated, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission(EC) had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. Leaders of opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR) have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar. During the hearing of arguments, the ADR submitted that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the EC notification on the SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn't be allowed to go on. The EC can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added. "By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral rolls can never be static," the bench noted. "There is bound to be revision," the top court said, "otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?" The bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, that despite their arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared that the large number of acceptable documents was "actually inclusionary". "The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary." The bench then went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit. It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral rolls for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, "When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed fit' but the subordinate legislation does not... will it not give a residual discretion to EC to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?" Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral rolls for "any constituency" or "for part of a constituency" and the EC couldn't wipe out the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion. "Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power," Justice Bagchi said. The residuary power of the EC flows from Article 324 of the Constitution and the RP Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the EC in the instant case has only added the word "intensive", that's all, the judge noted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the NGO, alleged the EC played "mischief" and removed the search feature from the draft roll and the list of 65 lakh people whose names were deleted for being dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies. "This happened just a day after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did a press conference pointing out that over lakh people(in an Assembly segment in a Lok Sabha constituency in Bengaluru) were fake voters," he added, arguing that an ordinary person was denied the right to search their name on the draft roll whether dead or alive or migrated to another place. Justice Kant said he was unaware of any such press conference but when it comes to the Registration of Electors Rule of 1960, Section 10 mandates the EC to publish a copy of the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. "They have to publish the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. That's a minimum threshold under the law. However, we would have liked it if it was published on the website for wider publicity," Justice Bagchi said. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said the petitioners claimed the rural population of Bihar was not tech savvy and now they were talking about the inability of the same people in searching online. On August 12, the top court said inclusion and exclusion of citizens or non-citizens from the electoral rolls was within the remit of the Election Commission and backed its stand to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the SIR of voters' list in Bihar.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Top Court Cancels Appointment Of 2 Members Under Governor's Quota In Telangana
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court Wednesday delivered a significant blow to the Telangana government, nullifying the appointments of Prof M Kodandaram and Amir Ali Khan as Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) under the Governor's quota. The top court's decision comes after a long-drawn legal battle challenging their nominations. The ruling, which also effectively removed the two men from their positions, stems from a petition filed by Dasoju Sravan and Satyanarayana. The petitioners argued that the appointments were in violation of established norms for Governor's quota nominations, which are intended for individuals with distinguished achievements in fields like literature, science, art, and social service. Prof Kodandaram, a well-known political analyst and the founder of the Telangana Jana Samithi (TJS), and Amir Ali Khan, an editor of the Urdu daily The Siasat Daily, were nominated to the Legislative Council by the state government. The appointments were initially quashed by the Telangana High Court, but the Supreme Court had stayed that order, allowing them to continue in their roles until today's final judgment. The Supreme Court's verdict has once again brought to the forefront the debate surrounding the process of nominating individuals to the Legislative Council under the Governor's quota. The court's decision reinforces the need for nominations to adhere strictly to the criteria laid out for these specific seats. The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for September 17, which may provide more clarity on the future course of action for all parties involved.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
SC agrees to constitute search committee for V-Cs' appointments in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University Kerala
The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to step in to resolve the impasse between the Kerala Governor, who is also the Chancellor of universities, and the State government over the formation of a search committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Digital University Kerala (DUK). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said it would appoint the search committee. It asked the State and the Governor to provide, by August 14, four names each for inclusion on the five-member search panel. The court would select four names for the search committee from both lists. The fifth member of the search committee would be nominated by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Justice Pardiwala said neither the Governor nor the State should insist on appointing interim V-Cs. 'Our endeavour is to appoint regular V-Cs. Today the entire problem is with the constitution of a search committee. We will help you out. We will constitute a search committee, which would give an opinion as to who are fit enough to be V-Cs. Then, you (Chancellor-State Governor would sit in consultation with the State government and select one for the digital university and another for the technology university,' Justice Pardiwala addressed Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Chancellor-Governor. Mr. Venkataramani said the Governor had only appointed interim V-Cs from serving V-Cs of other universities. 'We had done nothing wrong,' the top law officer submitted. He was referring to how the Kerala High Court had quashed Chancellor's appointment of temporary V-Cs to the universities without consulting with the State government. 'This is not a power struggle. This is a federal issue. We have an underlying common culture in this country. But every State is very different. So, therefore, education is on the Concurrent List. The Chancellor is trying to ensure there is no whiff of Kerala in his appointments. Like this, the federal nature of the process would get diluted,' senior advocate Jaideep Gupta and advocate CK Sasi, appearing for Kerala, submitted. Mr. Gupta said the 'unilateral' appointment of interim V-Cs for six months by the Chancellor was in breach of Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act. The provision mandated that interim V-Cs should be appointed only on the recommendation of the State government'. Justice Pardiwala responded to Mr. Gupta's submission by reading out the court's July 30 order in the case, which said 'in the event a vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises the Chancellor may appoint a Vice-Chancellor of any other university or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university itself or the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department 'as recommended by the government'.
