Supreme Court Clarifies: Law Passed by Legislature Cannot Be Treated as Contempt of Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Law Passed by Legislature Cannot Be Treated as Contempt of Court

New Delhi, June 4, 2025

In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional balance of powers, the Supreme Court of India ruled that laws enacted by the Parliament or State Legislatures cannot be treated as acts of contempt of court, even if such laws have the effect of overriding previous judicial decisions.

A bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai made the observation while dismissing a petition that alleged that a state law, which effectively altered the impact of a previous court ruling, amounted to judicial contempt.

“The power of the legislature to enact a law in the field assigned to it by the Constitution is unfettered, subject only to constitutional limitations. Enacting a law, by itself, cannot amount to contempt of court,” the Supreme Court clarified.

The judgment underscores that legislative supremacy in its domain must be respected and that the mere act of enacting a statute — even if it leads to the nullification of a precedent — is not contemptuous unless it targets or disrespects the authority of the court directly.

Constitutional Position

The ruling reaffirms the doctrine of separation of powers embedded in the Indian Constitution, which demarcates the independent roles of the judiciary, executive, and legislature. The court emphasized that it is not open for the judiciary to interfere with legislative policy-making, except on grounds of unconstitutionality.

 Background of the Case

The petition challenged a recent amendment passed by a state legislature, contending that it diluted a previous Supreme Court directive. However, the bench observed that unless a specific judicial direction is violated, or there is deliberate disobedience of a binding order, the enactment of a law does not fall within the purview of contempt proceedings.

Legal scholars have welcomed the ruling, viewing it as a reaffirmation of democratic governance, where each organ functions within its constitutionally designated space.

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

 

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy