Legislative Enactments Cannot Constitute Contempt of Court: Supreme Court Reinforces Separation of Powers

Last Updated on June 5, 2025 by Amit Patra

In a Constitutional ruling affirming the very foundation doctrine of separation of powers, the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that neither Parliament nor the State Legislatures can bring any such legislation enacted by them under the ambit of contempt of court, even though such enactments be made after judicial orders, reasserting the separation of legislative activities from judicial oversight.

The Court of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this notable remark while rejecting allegations of contempt of court in the form of Chhattisgarh’s passage of the Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 in the 2007 Salwa Judum case. The Court reiterated that “the publication 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 proved that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise.”

The decision addresses a straightforward constitutional issue regarding the division of control between legislature and judiciary. The Court clarified that each State Legislature is endowed with plenary legislative powers to enact laws, and such enactments are of force of law unless a constitutional court deems them ultra vires. While courts still retain the interpretative authority and the jurisdiction to address issues of validity, “the interpretative authority of a Constitutional Court does not anticipate a case of ruling exercise of legislative powers and enactment’s enactment as a case of contempt of a Court.”

The Supreme Court reasoning underlines the separation of powers doctrine, where it observes that legislatures have inherent powers to enact, modify, or even repeal the source of judicial rulings through constitutional legislative procedures. The Court noted that “a legislature has, inter alia, the powers to enact a law, to delete the ground of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been invalidated by a Constitutional Court by changing or amending it so as to be consistent with the judgment.”

This ruling necessitates precedent by establishing the difference between legislative competence and judicial review. The Court demanded legislation could be challenged on both grounds of legislative competence and constitutional validity, but not as contempt proceedings. The ruling reaffirms that “central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws,” and this fundamental democratic postulate must be respected in India’s constitutional framework.

The decision also serves to demystify the constitutional margins between government arms such that legislating will still remain safe from contempt trials but judicial power to balance constitutionality is maintained through legal recourse.