Salwa Judum was a state-sponsored armed vigilante movement that forced thousands of local Chhattisgarh tribals out of their homes. A Supreme Court judgement banned it, deeming it unconstitutional.
Published Aug 25, 2025 | 6:48 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 26, 2025 | 10:25 AM
Amit Shah's politically charged remark hasn't gone down well with the legal fraternity. Credit: iStock, x.com/AmitShah
Synopsis: The Salwa Judum judgment highlighted the need for socio-economic remedies to tackle Naxalism, rather than militarising vulnerable tribals, aligning with expert recommendations that viewed the issue as tied to inequality and failed development policies.
On Friday, 22 August, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stirred up a hornet’s nest by accusing INDIA bloc vice-presidential candidate Justice (retd) B Sudershan Reddy of “aiding the Maoists” through a 2011 judgment that outlawed the counter-insurgency militia Salwa Judum, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.
While visiting Kerala’s Kochi, Shah said, “If that judgment had not been passed, Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020.”
Needless to say, Shah’s statement didn’t go down well with the legal fraternity.
“The judgment 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,” a group of over a dozen retired judges, who served the Supreme Court and high courts, said on Monday, 25 August.
Amit Shah has now started attacking Justice B Sudarshan Reddy for the 2011 Supreme Court verdict declaring Salwa Judum unconstitutional. The judgement has been in line with several verdicts of the apex court during 2007-25. Does Amit Shah consider the Supreme Court Maoist? pic.twitter.com/8A0TMT92GF
— Dipankar (@Dipankar_cpiml) August 23, 2025
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, such as Justices Govind Mathur, J Muralidhar and Sanjib Banerjee (all three former high court chief justices), as well as former high court judges Anjana Prakash, C Praveen Kumar, G Raghuram, K Chandru, K Kannan, A Gopal Reddy, Kailash Gambhir and B Chandrakumar, also signed the statement.
The Supreme Court’s order on Salwa Judum refers to its landmark 2011 judgment in the case of Nandini Sundar & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh.
Salwa Judum was a state-backed civilian vigilante movement initiated in 2005 in Chhattisgarh to counter Maoist/Naxalite insurgency, primarily by arming and mobilising tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs), also known as Koya Commandos.
The SC declared this initiative unconstitutional and issued directives to dismantle it.
Declaration of unconstitutionality: The court ruled that the formation and operation of Salwa Judum, along with the appointment and deployment of SPOs for counter-insurgency activities, violated Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Salwa Judum resulted in Maoists gaining more ground in Chhattisgarh. It was dangerous, haphazard, and pushed the Adivasis towards the CPI (Maoist).
The first warning against Salwa Judum was sent to the Home Ministry by a serving…— Rahul Pandita (@rahulpandita) August 25, 2025
SPOs, often poorly educated tribal youth paid a meagre honorarium of Rs 3,000 per month (largely funded by the Union government), were being used as “force multipliers” in combat roles despite claims of limited duties such as guiding or spotting.
The court held that this treated them unequally compared to trained police officers and exposed them to extreme dangers without adequate preparation.
The SC deemed the order essential to uphold constitutional principles and prevent systemic abuses.
Key reasons included:
Human rights violations and exploitation: Salwa Judum led to widespread atrocities, including killings, rapes, arson, and forced displacement of tribals, often under the guise of anti-Maoist operations. Arming undereducated youth fueled a cycle of revenge and hatred, dehumanising them and turning them into “cannon fodder” with high casualty rates (e.g., 173 SPOs killed between 2005 and 2011). This exploited socio-economic vulnerabilities in tribal areas, where insurgency stemmed from issues like land displacement and resource exploitation, as noted in government reports.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has been caught misinterpreting the Supreme Court judgment in the Salwa Judum case.
The judgment nowhere supports Naxalism or its ideology — neither expressly nor by implication.
This distortion is dangerous.
⚖️ In a powerful rebuttal, former… pic.twitter.com/9dHcLVcav7— Manickam Tagore .B🇮🇳மாணிக்கம் தாகூர்.ப (@manickamtagore) August 25, 2025
Abdication of state responsibility: The state was abdicating its duty to maintain a professional, permanent police force by relying on temporary, ill-trained vigilantes. This approach not only endangered SPOs’ lives (violating Article 21) but also risked creating armed groups that could turn rogue post-service, threatening societal order.
Upholding rule of law over vigilantism: The court stressed that counter-insurgency must adhere to constitutional bounds, rejecting arguments of “efficiency” or necessity. Unlawful means erode the state’s moral and legal authority, potentially leading to broader societal breakdown.
Addressing root causes: The judgment highlighted the need for socio-economic remedies to tackle Naxalism, rather than militarising vulnerable tribals, aligning with expert recommendations that viewed the issue as tied to inequality and failed development policies.
Thousands of local Chhattisgarh tribals were forced to vacate their homes due of the recurring police and Naxalite violence in the region. The Salwa Judum movement triggered the largest displacement in central India, where the locals had to flee to the forests of neighbouring Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, reported NewsClick.
Presently, majority of the tribals are living in Telangana’s Dandakaranya forests.
Shubhranshu Choudhary, a social worker who has been trying to resettle the displaced tribals back to their homes in Chhattisgarh, spoke exclusively with South First and informed that the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are forcing these people vacate the their lands.
The complexities don’t just end here. As per Choudhary, the tribals allege that the state governments of the two Telugu states don’t acknowledge them as Adivasis. Back home in Chhattisgarh, they’re called Muria Gond Adivasis, however, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have stripped them of their tribal identity and don’t consider them as one.
Choudhary also alleged that the forest rangers of Telangana have taken over the tribal lands in the settlements, bulldozed their homes, and are using it for plantation.
Choudhary informed South First that just like the Kashmiri Pandits and tribals of Mizoram were recognised as Internally Displaced People (IDP), the Muria Gond should also be given the same status by the Centre.
“More than 50,000 tribals have been pushed out of their homes. It’s been almost 20 years now, and the second generation of Adivasi kids have grown up in such perilous conditions. Some of these kids are educated till Class 10, but since they have been denied the Scheduled Tribe certificates, they can’t continue further studies – exposing them to continued exploitation.”
Choudhary further added that these adivasis live under inhumane conditions deep inside forests with no electricity and access to water.
“Things haven’t improved even after the Revanth Reddy-led Congress government took over the reigns in Telangana. The party spoke highly of tribal and Dalit rights during their election campaign, but it all fizzled out once they tasted victory after toppling the BRS,” Choudhary stated.
Arming the innocent tribals to counter Naxalites have taken place in India earlier as well. In states like Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh, such exercises were somewhat successful too. However, Salwa Judum movement was the exact opposite. It not only internally displaced scores of tribals, but also turned them into an ‘alien’ in their own country.
