Writ Petitions Would No Longer Survive For Consideration | Supreme Court Disposes Of Long Pending PILs And Contempt Plea Against Chhattisgarh Over Salwa Judum And SPOs
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of public interest litigations and a contempt petition challenging the deployment of Special Police Officers (SPOs) and the functioning of Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh. The Court concluded that the "writ petitions would no longer survive for further consideration" and declined to entertain the associated contempt proceedings.
The petitions, which had remained pending since 2007, sought various reliefs including disbandment of Salwa Judum, cessation of SPO operations, rehabilitation of victims, and investigations into alleged human rights abuses. After reviewing the record and considering compliance with the 2011 judgment, the Court found that the relevant directives had already been addressed. It further clarified that the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 could not be construed as contempt.
The case originated from writ petitions filed in 2007 and a subsequent contempt petition filed in 2012. The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court in public interest, alleging grave violations of human rights in Dantewada and surrounding districts of Chhattisgarh due to the State’s support of Salwa Judum and recruitment of SPOs. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to disband such formations, prevent the arming of civilians, investigate instances of violence, and rehabilitate affected persons.
The primary reliefs sought included directions restraining the State from promoting Salwa Judum; mandating impartial investigations into alleged crimes such as arson, rape, and extrajudicial killings; compensation and rehabilitation for victims; and prohibition on the use of minors as SPOs.
On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court passed a detailed order in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547], directing the State to immediately cease and desist from deploying SPOs in counterinsurgency roles. The Court also directed the Union of India to withdraw any funding supporting such recruitment. Additional directions included recall of firearms issued to SPOs, provision of security to former SPOs, dismantling of armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, and investigations into previous incidents of violence.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was tasked with investigating incidents of violence reported from the villages of Morpalli, Tadmetla, and Timmapuram, and attacks on Swami Agnivesh in March 2011. The CBI was directed to submit a preliminary report within six weeks. Compliance reports were also ordered from the State of Chhattisgarh and the Union of India.
Subsequent to the 2011 judgment, the State legislature enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011. The petitioners argued that this Act represented a circumvention of the Court’s order and constituted contempt. They filed Contempt Petition No. 140/2012, praying for initiation of contempt proceedings and additional reliefs, including implementation of a rehabilitation plan under the Court’s supervision.
In response, the respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and other senior counsel, contended that the directions of the Court had already been complied with. They asserted that the petitions had been kept pending solely to ensure timely filing of compliance reports. They further argued that the new legislation could not be equated with contempt, as legislatures possess plenary powers under the Constitution.
The petitioners reiterated their concerns about continuing violations, lack of rehabilitation, and failure of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to submit mandated reports.
The Bench recorded that the directions given in 2011 had been complied with: "We find that those prayers have been crystallized in the form of the order that has been passed by this Court." The Court noted that "the writ petitions would no longer survive for further consideration by this Court."
Regarding the new legislation enacted by the Chhattisgarh State, the Court stated: "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."
It further elaborated: "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."
"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."
"The 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 the Parliament or any State Legislature."
In reference to the separation of powers, the Court stated: "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 Court cited precedent: "In Indian Aluminium Co. vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 7 SCC 637, this Court observed that Courts in their concern and endeavour to preserve judicial power equally must be guarded to maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries."
Addressing the contempt petition specifically, the Bench observed: "We do not commend the filing of a Contempt Petition for the purpose of assailing the validity of the aforesaid enactment."
On the nature of reliefs sought in the contempt plea, the Court noted: "We have also noted other prayers sought for in the Contempt Petition and find that they are in the nature of writs of mandamus being sought in the Contempt Petition which cannot be granted as such."
"We dispose of the Contempt Petition having regard to the fact that the prayers sought for therein cannot be granted by us in the form of a Contempt Petition."
Regarding the NHRC’s non-response, the Bench stated: "We find that the said grievance would no longer survive inasmuch as we are disposing of these matters and hence, we do not wish to take further note of the said grievance in these cases."
The Court concluded by disposing of the writ petitions and the contempt petition. It recorded:
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition stand disposed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Stuti Raj, Advocate; Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate; Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Advocate; Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Advocate; Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate; Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate; Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate-on- Record
Case Title: Nandini Sundar & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 250/2007; W.P.(Crl.) No. 119/2007; Contempt Petition No. 140/2012
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
