Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2011): A Landmark on State Power, Tribal Rights, and Judicial Review -

In the deep heartlands of Chhattisgarh, a legal and constitutional battle unfolded that tested the balance between national security, tribal rights, legislative power, and judicial authority. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) is not only a critical moment in India’s fight against Maoist insurgency, but also a powerful reaffirmation of the constitutional limits on state action, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the duty to protect the dignity and rights of citizens, even amidst internal conflict.

The Context: Salwa Judum and Tribal Militancy

The backdrop to this case is the conflict between Maoist insurgents (Naxalites) and the Indian state, particularly in mineral-rich but impoverished tribal regions like Chhattisgarh. In 2005, the state launched an anti-Maoist movement called Salwa Judum meaning “peace march” in the Gondi language. Far from being a peaceful movement, however, it involved the arming and mobilization of local tribal youth, often minors, into militias called Special Police Officers (SPOs). These SPOs, many of whom belonged to tribal communities like the Koya, were poorly trained but used extensively in combat operations against Naxalites. They were known as Koya Commandos, and operated under the umbrella of the Salwa Judum. Human rights organizations and civil society activists accused the movement of being a front for state-sponsored vigilantism, citing reports of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, forced displacement, and large-scale abuses against civilians.

The Supreme Court’s 2011 Judgment

The petitioners, including sociologist Nandini Sundar, moved the Supreme Court seeking to end the use of SPOs in counter-insurgency operations. The Court, in its 2011 judgment, took serious note of the state’s actions and their constitutional implications. The bench, led by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, held that the deployment of undertrained tribal youth in armed combat posed a grave threat to the right to equality (Article 14) and right to life and dignity (Article 21) of both the SPOs and the civilians. The Court observed that such practices amounted to a failure of the state to fulfill its constitutional obligations, especially in protecting the most vulnerable citizens from violence and exploitation.

Accordingly, the Court:

Ordered the immediate disbanding of SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency;
Directed the Chhattisgarh government and the Centre to recover all arms and resources provided to such personnel;
Mandated that the recruitment of SPOs under the Chhattisgarh Police Act for combat duties be stopped.

This judgment was widely hailed by human rights activists as a victory for tribal autonomy, rule of law, and constitutional morality.

The State’s Response: A New Law and a Fresh Legal Challenge

In an apparent attempt to bypass the judgment, the Chhattisgarh government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, enabling the formation of a new auxiliary force that closely resembled the now-disbanded SPOs. The structure and function of this auxiliary force bore striking similarities to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, effectively reviving the same model under a different name and legislative cover. In response, the petitioners filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the state had violated the spirit and letter of the 2011 judgment by legislating a workaround.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Contempt

The Court, however, declined to hold the Chhattisgarh government in contempt. It observed that the state had complied with the original directions from 2011 SPOs were disbanded, weapons recovered, and reports submitted. Regarding the new law, the Court ruled that a state legislature has the constitutional authority to enact laws on subjects within its jurisdiction, provided that such laws are not unconstitutional or ultra vires.

The Court emphasized that:

Judicial orders cannot prevent a legislature from exercising its legislative powers;
A legislature is permitted to remove the basis of a judicial decision, pass retrospective legislation, or even validate laws struck down earlier—so long as it does not violate the Constitution;
Separation of powers must be respected—courts cannot supervise legislative intent beyond ensuring constitutional compliance.

This reaffirmed a vital principle of Indian constitutional law: Courts do not legislate, and legislatures are not bound by prior judicial policy determinations, unless prohibited by the Constitution itself.

Relevant Precedent: Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala (1996)

The Court’s reasoning drew on its earlier decision in Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala (1996), where it had upheld the power of legislatures to pass new laws or amendments that could override the effect of judicial decisions, provided they do not directly nullify a court order or encroach upon judicial power. This distinction between overruling judgments and removing their legal basis is essential to the working of Indian federalism and constitutional governance.

Why This Case Still Matters

The Nandini Sundar case is a textbook example of how state power, legislative autonomy, and judicial review interact in a constitutional democracy. While the Supreme Court’s original ruling in 2011 was a landmark in terms of human rights jurisprudence, the later decision upholding legislative action highlights the constitutional boundaries of judicial activism. The legacy of Salwa Judum continues to haunt Chhattisgarh’s tribal areas. Many displaced families have yet to return, and questions about the use of force, the militarization of tribal regions, and the balance between security and civil liberties remain unresolved. At its core, this case is a reminder that while judicial orders can protect rights, lasting justice must come through democratic institutions working within their defined limits—and that includes legislatures crafting laws and courts interpreting them, each within their own constitutional sphere.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/