Supreme Court Upholds Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Act

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on case involving the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. The Court dismissed a contempt petition challenging the State’s enactment of the law after its earlier order restricting the use of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Maoist operations. This decision reaffirmed the constitutional balance between the judiciary and legislature in India.
Background of the Supreme Court Order
In July 2011, the Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to stop using SPOs in any activities related to countering Maoist insurgency. The Court ordered the recall of firearms issued to SPOs and prohibited funding by the Union government for their recruitment. The ruling stated that employing poorly trained and inadequately paid SPOs violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty.
Enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act
Following the Court’s order, Chhattisgarh passed the Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. The Act authorised the creation of an auxiliary force to assist security forces in maintaining public order and combating Maoist violence. It included safeguards such as compulsory training of at least six months and deployment only under supervision, excluding frontline combat roles. Selection criteria ensured only eligible SPOs would join the auxiliary force.
Contempt Petition and Its Grounds
Petitioners argued the new Act violated the Supreme Court’s 2011 order and amounted to contempt of court. They contended that the Act indirectly permitted the use of SPOs in anti-Maoist operations, contrary to the Court’s directive. The petition sought to hold the State accountable for disregarding the earlier judgment.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning for Rejecting Contempt
The Supreme Court rejected the contempt plea for several reasons. First, it acknowledged that the State had complied with its earlier directions and submitted compliance reports. Second, the Court emphasised the plenary power of the legislature to enact laws within constitutional limits, even if such laws alter or override judicial decisions. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that legislation cannot be contemptuous unless it violates constitutional provisions. The Court cited precedent to underline that courts must respect legislative competence and maintain the balance among sovereign branches.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Legislative Competence
The case marks the constitutional principle that the judiciary, legislature, and executive function independently within their spheres. While courts interpret laws, legislatures have the authority to create or amend laws. A law can only be invalidated if it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that courts cannot treat valid legislation as contemptuous merely because it modifies prior judicial rulings.