Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Nandini Sundar vs State Of Chattisgarh on 15 May, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007
NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 119/2007
AND
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 140/2012
O R D E R
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners
and learned ASG appearing for the respondent-CBI and State of
Chhattisgarh at length.
2. We have perused the order of this Court passed in this
very case dated 05.07.2011 [Nandini Sunder vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 547].
3. Learned senior counsel Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing
for petitioners submitted that although the aforesaid order of
this Court had recorded many directions, the fact remains that
Signature Not Verified
the said Writ Petitions have not yet been concluded or closed.
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.06.03
10:21:05 IST
They are still pending before this Court. In this regard, our
Reason:
attention was drawn to paragraph 90 of the said order as well
1
as paragraphs 95 and 96 of the said order. For immediate
reference, the said paragraphs read as under:
“90. We order that:
(i) The State of Chhattisgarh immediately cease and desist
from using SPOs in any manner or form in any
activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at
controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise
eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities in the State of
Chhattisgarh;
(ii) The Union of India to cease and desist, forthwith,
from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or
indirectly the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of
engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities
against Maoist/Naxalite groups;
(iii) The State of Chhattisgarh shall forthwith make every
effort to recall all firearms issued to any of SPOs,
whether current or former, along with any and all
accoutrements and accessories issued to use such
firearms. The word “firearm” as used shall include any
and all forms of guns, rifles, launchers, etc., of
whatever calibre;
(iv) The State of Chhattisgarh shall forthwith make
arrangements to provide appropriate security, and
undertake such measures as are necessary, and within
bounds of constitutional permissibility, to protect
the lives of those who had been employed as SPOs
previously, or who had been given any initial orders
of selection or appointment, from any and all forces,
including but not limited to Maoists/Naxalites; and
(v) The State of Chhattisgarh shall take all appropriate
measures to prevent the operation of any group,
including but not limited to Salwa Judum and Koya
Commandos, that in any manner or form seek to take law
into private hands, act unconstitutionally or
otherwise violate the human rights of any person. The
measures to be taken by the State of Chhattisgarh
shall include, but not be limited to, investigation of
all previously inappropriately or incompletely
investigated instances of alleged criminal activities
of Salwa Judum, or those popularly known as Koya
Commandos, filing of appropriate FIRs and diligent
prosecution.
2
xxx
95. We order the Central Bureau of Investigation to
immediately take over the investigation of, and taking
appropriate legal actions against all individuals
responsible for:
(i) the incidents of violence alleged to have occurred
in March 2011, in the three villages, Morpalli,
Tadmetla and Timmapuram, all located in Dantewada
District or its neighbouring areas;
(ii) the incidents of violence alleged to have been
committed against Swami Agnivesh, and his
companions, during their visit to State of
Chhattisgarh in March 2011.
96. We further direct the Central Bureau of Investigation
to submit its preliminary status report within six weeks
from today. We also further direct, the State of
Chhattisgarh and the Union of India, to submit compliance
reports with respect to all the orders and directions
issued today within six weeks from today. List for further
directions in the first week of September, 2011.”
4. It was submitted that having regard to what has been
directed by this Court and the object and purpose of the
directions, the matters have been kept pending before this
Court since the year 2007 in order to ensure that all the
prayers sought for in these Writ Petitions are ultimately
granted.
5. Learned senior counsel Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan also drew
our attention to the fact that despite this Court having the
writ petitions pending, there has been contempt of the Order of
this Court inasmuch as the State of Chhattisgarh has legislated
the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 (for
3
short “the Act”). It was argued that the very legislation of
the said enactment is an act of contempt of the order of this
Court by the State of Chhattisgarh.
6. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel contended
that several applications have been filed in these Writ
Petitions and a Contempt Petition has also been filed and
hence, the matters may be heard on those applications as well
as the Contempt Petition.
7. In this regard, learned senior counsel submitted that the
petitioners herein have filed these Writ petitions and Contempt
Petition purely in public interest as they are, firstly,
interested in the rehabilitation of the persons who were and
are constituted as an armed force (SPO); secondly, by the
enactment of the Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, there has
been a contempt and violation of order of this Court; and,
thirdly, although a direction was issued to the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) to submit their affidavit, there has
been no such affidavit which has been filed and there is non-
compliance on their part too.
8. In the above premise, learned senior counsel submitted
that these matters may be kept pending to be heard on the
applications filed by the petitioners and necessary orders may
be made against the respondent.
4
9. Per contra, learned ASG Sri K.M. Nataraj, appearing for
the Union of India as well as the State of Chhattisgarh drew
our attention to paragraph 96 of the aforesaid judgment to
contend that six weeks’ time was granted to the Central Bureau
of Investigation (‘CBI’) to submit its preliminary status
report and a further direction was issued to the State of
Chhattisgarh and Union of India to submit compliance reports
with respect to all orders and directions issued in the said
order within six weeks from the date of that order and
therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed in the first
week of September, 2011 only to ensure that the said reports
were filed before this Court. He submitted that the said
reports have been filed before this Court and therefore there
is no necessity for having these Writ Petitions and the
Contempt Petition pending for consideration on any further
issue which may have arisen subsequent to the aforesaid order.
In this regard learned ASG pointed out that the pleadings and
the prayers made by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions as
well as in the Contempt Petition may be considered to arrive at
the only possible conclusion that the lis no longer survives
and therefore, appropriate orders may be made by this Court for
conclusion and disposal of these proceedings.
10. In light of the above submissions, we have perused the
Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition and the prayers
sought for in the said petitions, which read as under:
5
1 W.P. (C) No.250/2007
“Prayers:
That the petitioner has not filed any other petition
seeking similar relief before any other Court in India
including this Hon’ble Court. In the circumstances, it is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Direct the Respondent to refrain from supporting,
associating, encouraging or promoting, in any manner
whatsoever, the activities of the ‘Salwa Judum’ movement.
(b) Direct an independent and impartial enquiry under the
aegis of the Supreme Court into the incidents of killings,
abductions, rapes, arson and gross violation of human
rights by the security forces and the ‘Salwa Judum’
activists, in endeavouring to counter the Naxalites from
Dantewara district of State of Chattisgarh, as well as
investigate the killings by the Naxalites;
(c) Direct the registration of FIRs and the prosecution of
those implicated by such independent and impartial enquiry
in accordance with law;
(d) Direct the Respondent to give compensation to all
those who have suffered from destruction of property,
killing of relatives, rape and other abuses by the Salwa
Judum activists at part with the compensation given to
victims of Naxalite violence;
(e) Direct the Respondent to effectively rehabilitate
those who wish to return to their own villages;
(f) Direct the Respondent not to appoint minors as Special
Police Officers (SPOs) nor allow them to participate in
any manner with the ‘Salwa Judum’ movement; and
(g) Pass any other order or further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”2 W.P.(Crl.) No. 119/2007
PRAYERS:
“In the premise, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
6
(a) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the Respondents to refrain from supporting, associating,
encouraging or promoting, any any manner whatsoever, the
activities of the ‘Salwa Judum’ movement;
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing
an independent and impartial enquiry under the aegis of the
Supreme Court into the incidents of killings abductions,
rapes, arson and gross violation of human rights by the
security forces and the ‘Salwa Judum’ activists, in
endeavouring to counter the Naxalites from Dantewara
district of State of Chattisgarh, as well as investigate
the killings by the Naxalites;
(c) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate criminal
offences and register cases against all those implicated in
the narratives referred to in this Writ Petition;
(d) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the respondents to identify the victims from the narratives
in the writ petition, restore them to their homes and grant
them compensation;
(e) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the respondents to take immediate steps to disband Salwa
Judum camps and keep vigilance to ensure that no such camp
is set up in future;
(f) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order to
disband the Special Police Officers and stop the state from
arming any member of the public in the districts of Baster,
Narainpur, Dantewada and Bijapur;
(g) Direct protection to the three petitioners herein; and
(h) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
in the interest of justice.”3 Conmt. Pet.(c) No. 140/2012
Prayers:
“In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is
prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
a. Initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors
for committing contempt of the directions passed by this
Hon’ble Court as contained in the judgment and order dated
5.7.11 and 18.1.11 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
7
b. Further prayed that all SPO’s against whom complaints
have been made not be absorbed into Government service
unless the particular obligation to investigate these
complaints and file FIR is carried out.
c. Further prayed that in view of the repeated failure of
the Chhattisgarh government to come up with an action plan
for compensation, relief and rehabilitation of all
categories of affected persons, as well as registration of
FIRs and prosecution, the Petitioners’ proposed
rehabilitation plan, drawn up under the directions of this
Hon’ble Court, be implemented under the aegis of an
independent High level Committee under the control and
supervision of this Hon’ble Court;
d. Pass such other and further order/orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interests
of justice.”
11. Having closely perused the prayers made in the Writ
Petitions as well as in the Contempt Petition which have been
filed by the petitioners herein, we find that those prayers
have been crystallized in the form of the order that has been
passed by this Court referred to above.
12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
herein submitted that having regard to the situation that has
emerged over the years in the State of Chhattisgarh, it is
necessary that all victims be rehabilitated and in that regard
the rehabilitation plan has been submitted before this Court by
the petitioners herein pursuant to the orders of this Court.
Secondly, it was submitted that the legislature of the State of
Chhattisgarh has passed the new enactment, pursuant to which
certain actions have been taken which is not in consonance with
the order of this Court. It was also submitted that the
National Human Rights Commission has not responded to the
8
directions of this Court. Hence, appropriate directions may be
issued from time to time in these cases.
13. We have heard at length and considered the submissions
advanced at the bar. 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 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 State of Chhattisgarh
who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it
may have arisen.
14. 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. 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
9
before the competent Court of law. 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 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. 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. This is the core of the doctrine of
separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a
constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also
emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our
Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of
powers, particularly legislative powers. 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
10
constitutional validity.
15. 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. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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. In the circumstances, we find no reason to
entertain the Contempt Petition 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.
11
18. As far as the prayers sought for in the two Writ Petitions
are concerned, we have already stated that those prayers have
been considered by this Court and have been crystallized in the
form of the aforesaid order, the relevant portions of which
have been extracted above. In the circumstances, we find that
the writ petitions would no longer survive for further
consideration by this Court.
19. We also note that there has been compliance of the
directions issued by this Court in paragraph 96 of the
aforesaid order inasmuch as the said reports have been
submitted by the authorities who were directed to submit the
said reports.
20. As far as the grievance of the petitioners with regard to
NHRC not responding to the directions of this Court is
concerned, 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.
12
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petitions as
well as the Contempt Petition stand disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………,J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 15, 2025
13
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.6 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007
NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 10/2016 – APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS
IA No. 144984/2018 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 17/2017 – MODIFICATION/CLARIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 10.2.17)
WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 119/2007 (PIL-W)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 140/2012 In W.P.(C) No. 250/2007 (PIL-W)
Date : 15-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Stuti Raj, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv.
Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, AORMr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh-(ii), Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR14
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Apoorva Kurup, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh-ii, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition
stand disposed in terms of the signed order which is placed
on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
15