Puru Purohit
Background:
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh is a noted landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, wherein several key aspects of Preamble and specifically the principle of fraternity were discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its fairly long judgment in this case and scrupulously discussed the concept of “Fraternity”. It is a progressive case which presents a sequence of how the understanding of the concept of Fraternity has evolved in the court. The case was filed by a social worker, Nandini Sundar, who alleged a violation of human rights of the people in the tribal villages related to Maoist/ Naxalite insurgency.
Facts
The case is concerned with the lives of tribal groups in the insurgency affected Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh. Several reliefs camps were set up in this part of Chhattisgarh for tribal people to live. Thus, it was presented that it is the duty of the government to send all tribal groups and families to their respective villages. The Petitioner of the case filed a writ petition alleging the violation of rights of the people of the village due to acts and omissions on the part of Government during this process. The chaos that has followed after the appointments of SPO by the government has led to severe violation of human rights of the tribal people in the area.
The Petitioner of the given case is a member of civil society and active participant in social service. The Petitioner led the issue and requested National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to investigate, verify and check all the contentions of Petitioner. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) by forming a committee evaluated and verified the allegation made. As was found in the case, a group of tribals were appointed as a Special Police Officers by the state government as a resistance against Maoist/Naxalite insurgency forces. The local tribal youth were was appointed as Special Police Officer without even minimal training. Appointment of these youngsters posed a threat to natural interests of the people. Several merciless killings and frequent violations of human rights were reported on their part. Moreover, the SPOs were deprived of adequate and timely payment of salary. The appointment had added fuel to the already proliferated and violent insurgency situation.
Issue
- First, the appointment of Special Police Officers during armed conflicts and the constitutional validity of posts like Special Police Officer.
- Regarding validity of Chhattigarh Government’s recruitment of tribal people as Special Police Officers
- The court also assessed provisions related to constitutional validity of Chhattisgarh Police act of 2007.
Observations and views of the court:
The Honorable Court termed Salwa Judum, the force of SPOs recruited from amongst the tribal population, as illegal. While discussing the matter, the Supreme Court ordered the State of Chhattisgarh to declare the concept of Salwa Judum, prevalent in that state to be declared as illegal. Supreme Court also pronounced its verdict on other issues. It held that no employment of Special Police Officer shall be done which in any way aims at or promotes the Maoist/ Naxalite activities in the state. The court held that anyone eliminating Maoist/ Naxalite activity shall be ceased and should desist him from doing any such acts. The Court also held that tribal youth can be appointed as aid, but their work profile should be limited only to the actions as specified in sections of the act. Before arriving at the decision on the youth’s appointment, the court analysed multifariously, several aspects of such appointment.
In the analysis of the Chhattisgarh Police Act it came to the conclusion that those who are appointed as Special Police Officer should perform such functions as mentioned except that of Section 23(1) h and Section 23(1) (i) of the Chhattisgarh Police Act of 2007. A discussion also arose with respect to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and a sanguine judgement was pronounced with a dash of rhetoric.
Legislative Provisions dealt with:
Chhattisgarh Police Regulations SPO (appointed under section 17,18, 19) was discussed upon.
This is another important judgment to note down. It deals with Constitutionality values. The judges have considered the case on humanitarian grounds and have based their judgement on the same. The judgment as well as the reasoning advanced by the Judges of the case is noteworthy. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered it as its duty to safeguard the interests of tribal people and rightly directed the State of Chhattisgarh according to the advice of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court is worth appreciating for its evaluation of the exercise of executive power. The court undertook careful scrutiny of the act to evaluate the appointment of Special Police officer. Despite the delay, a fair idea of justice was at display in the judgement.
The judgment, apart from this, sheds light on the concept of delegation of executive power. It clearly elaborates and explains in a remarkable manner regarding what can be delegated and what can not be, from Legislature to Executive or vice versa. The ruling as held in Nandini Sundar case and the statement as pronounced by the judges will stay in the minds of people forever. Various other important constitutional provisions have been interpreted in this Nandini Sundar judgment. The Supreme Court has shown extraordinary craftsmanship in the framing of the judgement which is comprehensive in all its dimensions, thereby making it prominent.