They observed that prejudicial interpretation of a judgement of the Supreme Court by a high political functionary “is likely to have a chilling effect on the serving judges of the apex court, shaking the independence of the judiciary.
Published Aug 25, 2025 | 8:28 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 25, 2025 | 10:04 AM
Union Minister Amit Shah
Synopsis: A group of over a dozen retired judges found fault with Union Minister Amit Shah for publicly misinterpreting a judgement of the Supreme Court to criticise the INDIA bloc Vice Presidential candidate, B Sudershan Reddy.
A group of over a dozen retired judges, who served the Supreme Court or high courts, on Monday, 25 August, found fault with Union Minister Amit Shah for publicly misinterpreting a judgement of the apex court to criticise the INDIA bloc Vice Presidential candidate, B Sudershan Reddy.
On Friday, Amit Shah accused Sudershan Reddy of aiding Maoists by delivering the Salwa Judum judgement in 2011. “If that judgement had not been passed, Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020,” Shah said while speaking at a media event in Kochi of Kerala.
“The judgement nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology. While the campaign for the office of the Vice President of India may well be ideological, it can be conducted civilly and with dignity,” the judges said in a joint statement.
The signatories include former Supreme Court judges AK Patnaik, Abhay Oka, Gopala Gowda, Vikramjit Sen, Kurian Joseph, Madan Lokur and J Chelameshwar. Several others, who served as chief justices or judges of high courts, also signed the statement — Justices Govind Mathur, J Muralidhar, Sanjib Banerjee (all three high court CJs) and former high court judges Anjana Prakash, C Praveen Kumar, G Raghuram, K Chandru, K Kannan, A Gopal Reddy, Kailash Gambhir and B Chandrakumar.
They observed that prejudicial interpretation of a judgement of the Supreme Court by a high political functionary “is likely to have a chilling effect on the serving judges of the apex court, shaking the independence of the judiciary.
The signatories felt that criticising the so-called ideology of either candidate should be eschewed, and it would be wise to refrain from name-calling out of respect for the office of Vice President of India.
Salwa Judum, a state-supported civil vigilante campaign, was started in 2005 in Chhattisgarh to target villages seen as harbouring Maoists. Armed vigilantes allegedly torched homes and forced villagers to flee to government-run camps. The state government projected it as a movement by the region’s tribal community against the Maoists.
However, human rights activists accused the Salwa Judum of forcing people to leave their villages and supporting the group. With the tribal community split between both sides, there were several deaths for months.
The 2011 judgement of a Supreme Court bench comprising Sudarshan Reddy said in the Salwa Judum case: “The State cannot outsource its duties to untrained vigilantes. This violates Article 14 and 21, including the right to life and equality of SPOs, as well as the right to life of villagers of Salwa Judum. It is the rapacious policies of the State which encourage Naxalism.”
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
