Legislative Acts Can’t Be Treated as Contempt of Court: Supreme Court in Salwa Judum Case
- Chintan Shah
- Jun 9
- 2 min read
In a notable judgment while concluding proceedings in the 2007 Salwa Judum case, the Supreme Court has clarified that the mere act of enacting legislation by Parliament or State Legislatures cannot be construed as contempt of court.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that legislating is a constitutionally recognised function, and passing a law does not amount to defiance or contempt of a court’s directive unless the law itself is found to be constitutionally invalid.
“Enactment of legislation, even if it follows a judicial order, cannot by itself be seen as contempt of court,” the bench stated. “A law may only be questioned if it is proven to be unconstitutional or lacks legislative competence.”
This observation came in response to a plea claiming that the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011—enacted after the Court’s earlier ruling in the Salwa Judum matter—violated the Court’s directions and therefore amounted to contempt.
The Court rejected this contention, holding that State Legislatures enjoy plenary powers within the scope of the Constitution, and their legislative actions retain validity unless explicitly invalidated by a constitutional court.
While courts do possess interpretative authority to examine the constitutionality or legal soundness of legislation, they cannot label the very act of legislating as contempt, the Court added.
“The constitutional role of the judiciary does not extend to equating the passage of a law with a contemptuous act,” the bench elaborated.
The judgment further reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers, emphasising that the authority to make and amend laws is central to the legislative function.
“Legislatures are empowered to amend or re-enact laws even after they have been struck down, provided such actions are within constitutional bounds. This is fundamental to our democratic framework and must be respected,” the Court noted.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Passing a law is not contempt: Enacting a statute post-judgment doesn’t automatically mean defiance of a court’s order.
Legislative competence and constitutional validity: These remain the only grounds on which a law can be challenged.
Judiciary’s role is interpretative, not obstructive: Courts can examine laws, but not interfere with the legislative function itself.
Separation of powers reaffirmed: Each organ of the State—executive, legislature, and judiciary—must operate within its own sphere.
This ruling brings clarity on the limits of judicial review in matters involving legislative action, especially in situations where a new law is passed in the backdrop of an earlier court directive.
Case Title: Nandini Sundar & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 250 of 2007
Comentários