Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 2, 2025 To June 8, 2025

Reports/ Judgements Passing Of Any Law By Parliament Or State Legislature Can't Be Held To Be Contempt Of Court : Supreme CourtCase Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662While closing the 2007 Salwa Judum case, the Supreme Court recently observed that any law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of Court."We also observe that 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 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", said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.While rejecting a plea that State of Chhattisgarh's enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 amounted to contempt of Court, the Court opined that every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and such an enactment continues to have the force of law unless it is declared ultra vires of the Constitution by a constitutional Court.While Courts can address interpretative doubts and questions regarding validity of such enactments, "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 said.Supreme Court Closes Salwa Judum Case After 18 Yrs; Rejects Plea That Chhattisgarh's New Law On Auxiliary Security Force Was Contempt Of Court Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662After 18 long years, the Supreme Court has disposed of the petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar (and others) highlighting human rights violations by security forces and Salwa Judum activists in Chhattisgarh. In 2011, taking note of the human rights violations, the top Court delivered a landmark judgment directing that the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs - engaged either as 'Koya Commandos', Salwa Judum or any other force - to tackle the insurgency problem in the state.However, two writ petitions and one contempt petition relating to the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court. Recently, the Court disposed of all three cases. While the writ petitions were disposed of based on a view that the prayers sought therein stood crystallized in the Court's judgment of 2011, the contempt prayers were seen as seeking writs of mandamus, which could not be granted under contempt jurisdiction.The Court reiterated that a state enactment continues to have the force of law unless it is declared ultra vires of the Constitution by a constitutional Court. While Courts can address interpretative doubts and questions regarding validity of such enactments, "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 said.The Court also noted, "We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws. 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."Supreme Court Issues Notice On Son's Plea Against Mother's Detention By Assam Police For 'Push Back' To Bangladesh Case Title: IUNUCH ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 234/2025 The Supreme Court today issued notice on a habeas corpus petition assailing Assam Police's "illegal detention" of a woman amidst reports of widescale deportation to Bangladesh.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the woman's 26-year-old son (the petitioner).'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Assam Govt's 'Pushback Policy' To Tackle Infiltration From BangladeshCase Title: ALL B.T.C. MINORITY STUDENTS UNION (ABMSU) Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 562/2025The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Assam government's 'push-back policy' for tackling infiltration from Bangladesh.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.During the brief hearing, Justice Sharma told Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for petitioner), "69 people are being deported, please go to the Guwahati High Court". When the bench expressed an inclination to dismiss the case, Hegde sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to approach the High Court. Ultimately, the case was dismissed as...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 2, 2025 To June 8, 2025

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags