After nearly two decades, the Supreme Court of India has officially closed the long-running case relating to the Salwa Judum movement and related human rights violations in Chhattisgarh. The petitions, originally filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others, had raised serious concerns about the use of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to tackle Maoist insurgents in the region.

Read also: Supreme Court: Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflecting Her Marital Standard of Living

The case is closely linked to the Chhattisgarh government's strategy of using SPOs, often called 'Koya Commandos', as a counter-terrorism force. However, allegations of human rights violations prompted judicial intervention. In 2011, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict that also directed the state to disband, disarm and de-arm all SPOs working under the Salwa Judum or any similar structure.

Despite the 2011 verdict, two writ petitions and a contempt petition remained pending. In its latest order, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of all three cases. The writ petitions were closed on the ground that their main concerns had already been addressed in the 2011 verdict.

Read also: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Next Radio’s Petition Against Copyright Rule 29(4)

With regard to the contempt petition challenging the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, the Court has firmly rejected the claims. The petitioners argued that the law passed after the 2011 judgment amounted to contempt of court.

However, the bench clarified that:

"We also hold that the passing of an Act by the Legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh after the order of this Court cannot, in our view, be termed as an act constituting contempt of the order passed by this Court."

The Court emphasised that mere enactment of a law does not amount to contempt. A legislative act will be termed as contempt only if it is found to be constitutionally invalid:

"The simple enactment of an Act is merely a manifestation of the legislative function and cannot be termed as an act constituting contempt of court unless it is first established that the law so enacted is constitutionally or otherwise bad in law."

Read also: Law student Sharmistha Panoli sent to 14 days judicial custody over controversial video on Operation

The judges also outlined the role of constitutional courts, stating that:

"The interpretative power of the Constitutional Court does not contemplate the exercise of legislative functions and the passing of an Act as an instance of contempt of court."

They reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers and the right of legislatures to enact or amend laws within constitutional limits:

"The legislature has the powers, inter alia, to pass a law, delete the grounds of a decision or, alternatively, validate a law that has been struck down by the Constitutional Court… This is the core of the principle of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours."

Addressing the situation in Chhattisgarh, the Court concluded with a call for peace-building and rehabilitation efforts:

"It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh and the Union of India, keeping in view Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps to bring peace and rehabilitation to the residents of the State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by violence, from whatever direction it may have originated."

The decision officially ends an important chapter in India’s human rights and counter-terrorism legal history, reinforcing the balance between law enforcement, legislative powers, and constitutional safeguards.

Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007

Appearance: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan (for petitioners); ASG KM Nataraj (for Union and State of Chhattisgarh)