Duty of Chhattisgarh govt, Centre to bring peace, rehabilitation of Naxal-affected people: SC

New Delhi, Jun 3 (PTI) It is the duty of Chhattisgarh and the Centre to take adequate steps for bringing peace and rehabilitation of the residents of the state who have been affected by the Naxal violence, the Supreme Court has said as it closed 18-year-old cases alleging human rights violations by security forces and Salwa Judum activists in the state.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma closed the cases filed by activist Nandini Sundar alleging human rights violations and other petitions including contempt which claimed non-compliance of the court's 2011 order that banned the use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) directly or indirectly in anti-Naxal operations in the state.

The bench said, "We find that having regard to the situation that has emerged over the decades in the state of Chhattisgarh, it is necessary that specific steps are taken so as to bring about peace and rehabilitation of the areas requiring the attention of the state as well as the central government who would have to act in a coordinated manner.

"We note that it is the 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 the state of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen," the bench said.

Referring to the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which created a trained force to aid and assist the security forces in maintaining law and order in the state, the bench said in its view it cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order of 2011 passed by this court.

"It is observed that 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. 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," the bench said in its May 15 order, uploaded recently.

The top court said indeed, 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.

"However, the interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring the exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court. We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws," it said.

The bench further said any law made by the Parliament or a state legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a court, including the Supreme 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. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours.

"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," the bench said while disposing of the petitions.

The top court further 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.

"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. We, therefore, do not commend the filing of a contempt petition for the purpose of assailing the validity of the aforesaid enactment," the top court said.

It said in the circumstances, the court finds no reason to entertain the Contempt petition as such and, hence, "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 writ petitions that alleged violations of human rights in Naxal-affected areas, the bench said the prayers have been considered by this court and have been crystallized in the form of the 2011 order.

"In the circumstances, we find that the writ petitions would no longer survive for further consideration by this court," it said.

On July 5, 2011, the bench passed a slew of directions with regard to banning Salwa Judum, a term used for a group of tribal people armed and trained to take on CPI (Maoists) and their rehabilitation.

It had directed the Centre to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/Naxalite groups. PTI MNL MNL KSS KSS