The Central/State Legislatures often legislate new laws to nullify the binding judgments of the Supreme Court & the High Courts. A question arises as to whether the Legislature is legally competent, within the framework of the Constitution, to enact new laws or amendments to negate the declarations of law by the Constitutional Courts. It is also often debated whether such a legislation tantamount to contempt of the Court in as much the legislation is willfully aimed to make the said declaration of law a nullity. 

In a recent landmark Apex Court in the case of Nandini Sundar & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petitions(s)(Civil) No(s). 250/2007 & W.P.(Crl.) No. 119/2007 and Contempt Petition(C) No. 140/2012, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the legislature's authority to enact laws that may effectively nullify the impact of its judgments. Crucially, the Court held that such legislative measures do not constitute contempt of court, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the Indian Constitution. 

The Court dealt with the subject in hand and succinctly observed thus:
14. We also observe that the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court. It is observed that every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment  would have the force of law.

However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent Court of law. Indeed, the Judiciary is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by the Parliament or any State Legislature.

However, the interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court. We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws. Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law.

A legislature has, inter alia, the powers to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a Constitutional Court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours.

This doctrine also emphasizes on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or Judicial Precedents on Legislative

Responses to Court Judgments  constitutional validity
15. In Indian Aluminium Co. vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 7 SCC 637, this Court observed that Courts in their concern and endeavour to preserve judicial power equally must be guarded to maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. In order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. 

16. 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. We therefore do not commend the filing of a Contempt Petition for the purpose of assailing the validity of the aforesaid enactment. 

17. We have also noted other prayers sought for in the Contempt Petition and find that they are in the nature of writs of mandamus being sought in the Contempt Petition which cannot be granted as such. In the circumstances, we find no reason to entertain the Contempt Petition as such. We dispose of the Contempt Petition having regard to the fact that the prayers sought for therein cannot be granted by us in the form of a Contempt Petition."

Constitutional Framework: Separation of Powers
The Indian Constitution delineates the functions and powers of the three branches of government: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. While the legislature is empowered to make laws, the judiciary interprets these laws and ensures they conform to constitutional mandates. This separation ensures a system of checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power in any single branch.

Judicial Precedents on Legislative Action in Response to Judicial Decisions

• Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State Of Kerala And Anr, 1973 4 SCC 225: This seminal case established the 'basic structure doctrine,' asserting that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework. This doctrine ensures that certain core principles, such as the separation of powers and the rule of law, remain inviolable.
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors, 1985 (2) SCC 556: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman's right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Parliament later enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively overriding the Court's decision, which ignited debates on the legislature's power to respond to judicial rulings.
• Baharul Islam & Ors. v. Indian Medical Association & Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 79: The Court clarified that while legislatures cannot directly overrule a judgment, they may enact laws retrospectively to change the underlying legal basis, thus rendering the judgment ineffective.
   

Amendments Made Subsequent to Judicial Decisions

The Apex Court has consistently upheld the validity of amendments made to Acts after judicial pronouncements:

1. State of Orissa vs. Oriental Paper Mills Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1438: Upheld the insertion of Section 14A to the Orissa Sales Tax Act after the decision in State of Bombay vs. United Motors India Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 252.
2. M/s. Misrilal Jain vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1686: Declared the original 1962 Act invalid but upheld the subsequent Act 8 of 1968 for curing the earlier constitutional defect.
3. M/s. Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow vs. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 405: Held that while direct encroachment on judicial power is impermissible, nullifying a decision by changing the law retrospectively is valid.
4. Govt. of A.P. vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., AIR 1975 SC 2037, I.N. Saksena vs. State of M.P., AIR 1976 SC 2250, Central Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Bhubaneswar Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1733: All upheld legislative amendments that removed the basis of earlier judgments.
5. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Narain Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 165: Upheld the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Valuation) Act, 1996, as it removed the defect in the earlier law. It reiterated that retrospective legislation removing the foundation of a judgment is valid, provided it doesn't violate constitutional limits.
   

Contempt of Court and Legislative Actions

The judiciary's power to punish for contempt safeguards its authority. However, legislative actions altering legal provisions without directly defying the judiciary do not constitute contempt. Courts have consistently upheld that such actions, when not impeding justice, are within legislative competence.
 

Implications of the Nandini Sundar Case

In the Chhattisgarh context, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that legislatures may address judicially identified issues through new laws without directly contravening existing judgments. This maintains the constitutional balance between legislative intent and judicial review.

Conclusion
The interplay between legislative actions and judicial decisions is a testament to the dynamic nature of constitutional governance in India. While the judiciary serves as the guardian of the Constitution, the legislature reflects the will of the people through lawmaking. The recent affirmation by the Supreme Court underscores the importance of mutual respect and adherence to constitutional principles by all branches of government. 

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 82799450210, Email: [email protected]