Latest news with #SalwaJudum
Scroll.in
a day ago
- General
- Scroll.in
Legislature cannot be in contempt simply for passing laws: Supreme Court in Salwa Judum case
The state Legislatures or Parliament cannot be held in contempt of court for simply passing a law, the Supreme Court has ruled as it closed the Salwa Judum case after 18 years. The court said this while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University Professor Nandini Sundar and others against the Chhattisgarh government's 2011 Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act. In its May 15 ruling that was released recently, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said that state Legislatures had the 'plenary powers to pass an enactment' and would have the force of law as long as it 'has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court'. 'We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws,' the court said. '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.' In 2005, the Salwa Judum, a state-supported civil vigilante campaign, was launched with an aim of targeting villages seen as harbouring Maoists. Armed vigilantes allegedly torched homes and forced villagers to flee to government-run camps. Translated as 'purification hunt' in Gondi language, Salwa Judum was presented by the state government as a spontaneous movement by the region's tribal community against the Maoists. However, human rights activists accused the Salwa Judum of coercing people into leaving their villages and supporting the group. With the tribal community split between both sides, there were several deaths for months. In May 2007, Sundar and others filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court alleging that the state government was using men from the tribal community as cannon-fodder in its fight against the Maoists. Four months later, the state government enacted the Chhattisgarh Police Act to absorb many of the Judum activists as special police officers. This was struck down by the Supreme Court on July 5, 2011, saying that the state actions amounted to 'an abdication of constitutional responsibilities' and that it represents 'an extreme form of transgression of constitutional boundaries'. The court also said that Salwa Judum was unconstitutional and ordered the group to be disbanded. Amid criticism, the Chhattisgarh Cabinet on July 22, 2011, promulgated an ordinance to introduce the Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act. Under the new Act, the special police officers were recruited as assistant constables on better terms and conditions. Sundar then filed a contempt plea before the Supreme Court in 2012 accusing the Chhattisgarh government of failing to stop its support for civil vigilante groups such as the Judum in its fight against Maoists. The plea argued that the 2011 law had simply legalised the existence of special police officers instead of complying with the court's order of winding up their activities. Other petitioners in the case The Indian Express reported.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Parliament's laws out of contempt ambit : SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others, who claimed that the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 to curb Maoist activity was in contempt of the court's landmark verdict against vigilante group Salwa Judum that year. '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,' a two-judge bench comprising justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said. Sundar had alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in 2011 to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. However, the bench observed that it was the duty of the state government and the Centre to take adequate steps for restoration of peace and rehabilitation of the residents who have been affected by violence from whatever quarter.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
‘Not contempt': SC refuses to quash Chhattisgarh's anti-Naxal law
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, holding that its enactment by the state legislature does not amount to contempt of the court's previous order that outlawed the controversial Salwa Judum militia. While refusing to strike down the 2011 legislation, the top court, however, made it unequivocally clear that it is the constitutional duty of both the Centre and the Chhattisgarh government to ensure peace and rehabilitation for the people affected by violence in the region. 'We note that it is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India 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,' a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated in its May 15 order, released recently. The bench noted that though the earlier order dated July 5, 2011 in the Nandini Sundar Vs State of Chhattisgarh case had directed the state to desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Naxal operations, the 2011 Act did not violate or override that ruling, nor could the enactment of a law be equated to contempt of court. '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 passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court,' held the bench. The bench added that the legislative action undertaken by the State was an exercise of its legitimate power under the Constitution. '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,' it said. Led by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, the petitioners — sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, had argued that the enactment of the 2011 law was in contempt of the apex court's July 2011 judgment, which held that the practice of appointing tribal youth as SPOs and arming them to fight Maoists was unconstitutional. They contended that the new law merely gave legislative backing to an arrangement that had already been struck down by the court. However, the court noted that while the earlier directions in the Nandini Sundar judgment prohibited the use of SPOs for counter-insurgency operations and ordered disbanding of armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum, the enactment of a new law by the state legislature could not, by itself, be equated to contempt. It added that the petitioners must mount an appropriate legal challenge if they sought to assail the validity of the 2011 law because 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.' The region has witnessed a decades-old Maoist insurgency, marked by frequent clashes between security forces and armed rebels, and has claimed thousands of lives over the years, including those of civilians, security personnel, and insurgents. The present litigation arises out of the Supreme Court's landmark 2011 judgment that had declared the use of tribal civilians as SPOs to combat Maoist insurgency as unconstitutional and violative of human rights. The top court had categorically banned the use of SPOs, many of them minors, and ordered disbanding of private militias like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, terming their activities as 'unconstitutional'. In that order, the apex court directed the immediate cessation of using SPOs in any form of counter-insurgency operations, withdrawal of all firearms issued to SPOs, prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed under the aegis of Salwa Judum and NHRC and CBI probes into grave human rights violations, including alleged arson and killings in some identified districts in Chhattisgarh. However, soon after the 2011 verdict, the state government enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, purportedly to legitimise the appointment of locals in auxiliary armed forces, prompting fresh litigation and a contempt plea by the petitioners, who argued that the enactment was an 'attempt to nullify' the Supreme Court's binding directions and that the state's move to reintroduce civilian combatants under a new statutory garb amounted to willful disobedience. They also flagged non-compliance with the court's directive to rehabilitate former SPOs, prosecute members of Salwa Judum for past atrocities, and investigate attacks on activists such as Swami Agnivesh, who was assaulted in 2011 while trying to visit affected villages. Rejecting these arguments, the bench held that enacting a law is a legislative act and must be challenged accordingly, not via contempt jurisdiction. It also took note of the Centre's and Chhattisgarh government's submission that they had complied with the directions issued in 2011 and had filed the requisite compliance reports. The Salwa Judum was a state-sponsored civil militia movement initiated in 2005 as a counter-insurgency strategy against Maoist rebels in southern Chhattisgarh. Comprising largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms, the movement rapidly became notorious for serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, sexual violence and forced displacement of villagers. The Salwa Judum was disbanded officially following the 2011 judgment.
United News of India
2 days ago
- General
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
Indian Express
2 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
SC: No contempt if Parliament and state legislature simply make laws
The Supreme Court has said that any law enacted by Parliament or a state legislature 'subsequent' to a court order cannot be held an act of contempt, and the enactment would have the 'force of law' unless declared 'null and void' by a Constitutional Court. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and S C Sharma said this in a May 15 order disposing of a 2012 contempt plea alleging that the Chhattisgarh government failed to comply with the SC's directions to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. The contempt plea contended that even after the SC on July 5, 2011 ordered winding up of Salwa Judum's activities, the Chhattisgarh government in September that year legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist violence and legalised existing SPOs by inducting them as members. The contempt plea — as well as the main petition on which the SC's 2011 order had come — were filed by former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar, author Ramachandra Guha and former Andhra Pradesh Tribal Affairs Secretary E A S Sharma. 'The passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court…', the bench said. '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 that under the Constitution, the judiciary is vested with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by the Parliament or any state legislature. '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 added. The bench sought to remind that 'central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws' and '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.' 'A legislature has, inter alia, the 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,' it said. 'This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours,' it said.
