Between Authority And Accountability: Reassessing Contempt Of Court Through The Nandini Sundar Case

Introduction

Contempt of court refers to acts that defy or disrespect the authority, dignity, and functioning of the judiciary. It is a legal tool used to ensure that the administration of justice is not obstructed or undermined. In India, this concept is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The recent Supreme Court proceedings in Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh addressed allegations of contempt against the State for enacting legislation that allegedly violated earlier court orders¹. The case raises important questions about the limits of legislative power and the scope of judicial authority in enforcing its directives.

Contempt of Court in India: An Overview

• Meaning and Purpose: Contempt of court is a legal tool meant to uphold the dignity, authority, and effective operation of the judiciary. It is meant to guarantee that the judicial process is not discredited by deliberate defiance or insulting comments likely to undercut public trust in the courts.
• Legal Basis: The Indian Constitution gives powers to the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 215, respectively. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives effect to this power by stating what is contempt and providing procedures for deciding and punishing such behavior.
• Types of Contempt: The Act of 1971 divides contempt into civil and criminal. Civil contempt, as stated in Section 2(b), refers to the intentional disobedience of a court order or direction. Criminal contempt, as described under Section 2(c), comprises any act or publication which: (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize the court; (ii) prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings; or (iii) obstructs the administration of justice. Criminal contempt has a wider ambit owing to its ability to impact the public’s perception and the impartial administration of justice.

Defences Against Charges of Contempt

The Act has a number of exceptions to avoid abuse and to safeguard legitimate expression:

• Innocent Publication (Section 3): A publication made without notice of an impending proceeding can be exempt from contempt.
• Fair and Accurate Reporting (Section 4): True reports of proceedings in court are safeguarded to promote transparency.
• Fair Criticism (Section 5): Reasonable and constructive criticism of judicial acts is permitted, maintaining freedom of speech.
• Good Faith Allegations (Section 6): Good faith allegations against lower court judges are not contempt.
• Truth (Section 13): A true statement, in public interest, made bona fide can constitute a defence.
• Apology (Proviso to Section 12): Unconditional and genuine apology can result in discharge or reduction of punishment.

The Recent SC Decision

Background and Facts of the Case

• This case arises from serious concerns regarding human rights abuses associated with the Salwa Judum movement – a state-sponsored vigilante movement in Chhattisgarh aimed at combating Maoist insurgency. The petitioners, consisting of renowned sociologist Nandini Sundar, among others, filed the writ petitions in the public interest, raising vital issues of:
  – Human rights violations such as killings, rapes, arson attacks, and displacement by Salwa Judum
  and Special Police Officers (SPOs),
  – Employment of children and civilians as equipped SPOs in counter-insurgency duties,
  – No rehabilitation of victimized and displaced civilians,
  – The imperative to conduct an unbiased inquiry into violence on the part of State actors and Naxalites.
• The Supreme Court in 2011 gave key directions² directing the suspension of SPO activity in counter-insurgency operations, withdrawal of weapons from them, CBI investigation into the particular incidents (specifically, violence at Morpalli, Tadmetla, and Timmapuram villages and attack on Swami Agnivesh), and submission of compliance reports.
• Even with these instructions, the State of Chhattisgarh passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which the petitioners felt was a direct defiance of the Supreme Court orders. This was followed by the filing of a contempt petition on the grounds of willful disobedience of court instructions and ongoing violation of fundamental rights.

The Court’s Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court, with Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, disposed of the writ petitions as well as the contempt petition by an order dated 15 May 2025³. The Court held that the earlier orders passed had largely been complied with, and no adjudication was required.

Points of the Court’s decision and reasoning are:

• On the Contempt Petition: The Court held that the passage of a law (i.e., the 2011 Act) cannot per se amount to contempt unless the law be held unconstitutional. It reasserted the doctrine of separation of powers, stressing that the legislative role encompasses enacting legislation—even where already dealt with by judicial orders. Thus, such a law has to be challenged through a challenge to the constitution, and not through contempt proceedings.
• On Legislative Power: Referring to Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala⁴, the Court emphasized that institutional balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary is to be maintained. It warned that judicial intervention must not obscure constitutional limits governing each organ.
• On Rehabilitation and Pending Issues: The Court recognized the concerns expressed by the petitioners regarding rehabilitation and ongoing suffering but made the observation that several of the original prayers had previously been crystallized within the 2011 judgment. It also made it clear that orders to institutions such as the NHRC, though important, no longer justified further court intervention in these proceedings.
• Final Outcome: The contempt petition was rejected, and the writ petitions were also disposed of, the Court determining that the prayers either had been answered or no longer existed.

Conclusion

Contempt of court, as a matter of law, exists in a precarious and frequently disputed area between judicial power and fundamental freedoms. Whereas upholding the dignity and efficacy of the judiciary is crucial, contempt powers should not be used as tools to muzzle legitimate criticism or dissent. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 tries to reconcile these conflicting interests by chiselling out distinct categories, defences, and procedural protections. The Nandini Sundar case vividly portrays this tension. It revealed not just the violations of human rights but also the intricate workings of judicial guidance and legislative intervention. The rejection of the contempt petition by the Supreme Court, although maintaining the autonomy of the legislature, upholds the perception that constitutional limits have to be respected by all State organs. The wider lesson from this judicial odyssey is that the institution of the judiciary has to be preserved not by the fear of retribution, but by transparency, accountability, and cross-institutional respect.

1. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/14030/14030_2007_6_18_61786_Order_15-May-2025.pdf ↩︎
2. (2011) 7 SCC 547. ↩︎
3. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/14030/14030_2007_6_18_61786_Order_15-May-2025.pdf ↩︎
4. Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala, (1996) 7 SCC 637. ↩︎