New Delhi, June 3 (Reporter) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the ‘Koya Commandos’ and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. “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,” the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, “A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.” It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. “It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,” the Court said...////...