The debate, in its current form, oversimplifies a complex legal ruling and attempts to use it as a political cudgel. Given that the judgement found fault with both the state and the Centre, it is difficult to pin the blame solely on one side.
Published Aug 30, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 30, 2025 | 8:00 AM
Justice B Sudershan Reddy. (IAMC)
Synopsis: Union Home Minister Amit Shah triggered a debate, saying Naxalism would have been eradicated by 2020, but for Justice B Sudershan Reddy’s judgement on Salwa Judum. Shah’s statement, bordering on whataboutery, even divided former judges. However, on closer look, it could be found that the debate Shah ignited has reduced the debate into a partisan issue because Justice Reddy had authored the ruling. It risks misrepresenting the very essence of the case and its findings.
The Opposition INDIA bloc’s nomination of former Supreme Court judge Justice B Sudershan Reddy as its vice presidential candidate has ignited a debate, centring on a landmark judgement he delivered in 2011.
This ruling, which addressed the strategies of the state of Chhattisgarh and the central government to combat Naxalism, has been thrust back into the public eye.
The roots of this legal challenge date back to a 2007 writ petition filed by three prominent figures: a respected author, a historian, and a former bureaucrat. Their petition alleged widespread human rights violations and indiscriminate counter-insurgency operations by the Chhattisgarh government.
A core part of their argument was the state’s active support for a group known as Salwa Judum, an armed civilian vigilante force. The case focused on the large-scale appointment of Special Police Officers (SPOs) and Koya commandos by the state as a primary measure to counter Naxalite activities.
The judgement, authored by Justice Reddy, was critical of the appointment process itself, scrutinising it against established rules and qualification criteria. The court’s findings were damning: it declared the appointment of these SPOs illegal and ordered the state to cease using them immediately.
The judgement specifically questioned the competence and legality of appointing uneducated or undereducated individuals as police officers.
The court’s findings were not limited to the state government alone. In a crucial part of the judgement, specifically paragraph 74, the court laid out its reasoning in unequivocal terms: “Both the Union of India and the state of Chhattisgarh have sought to rationalise the use of SPOs… on the ground that they are effective in combating Naxalite activities and violence, and they are force multipliers. As we have pointed out hereinabove, the adverse effects on society, both current and prospective, are horrific. Such policies of the state violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, of those being employed as SPOs… as well as the citizenry living in those areas.”
This paragraph is noteworthy because it blames both the central and state governments. While the BJP was in power in Chhattisgarh from 2003 to 2018, the Congress-led government was at the Center when the judgement was passed.
The judgement, in fact, highlighted the central government’s ambivalent stance. In paragraph 32, it pointed out the lack of clarity in an affidavit filed by the Union of India regarding its specific position on the use of SPOs in Chhattisgarh.
Despite this ambiguity, the central government had broadly supported the deployment of SPOs, even referring to them as “force multipliers”.
The judgement’s core focus was a nuanced legal and humanitarian one: the legality of employing unqualified individuals as a counter-insurgency measure and the human rights implications of such a policy. Therefore, bringing this judgement into the political discourse of the vice presidential election may be a flawed approach.
The debate, in its current form, oversimplifies a complex legal ruling and attempts to use it as a political cudgel. Given that the judgement found fault with both the state (then led by the BJP) and the Union (led by the Congress), it is difficult to pin the blame solely on one side.
The judgement stands as a legal precedent on human rights and law enforcement practices, not a political indictment of a single party or leader. Therefore, to reduce the debate to a partisan issue, merely because Justice Reddy authored the ruling, risks misrepresenting the very essence of the case and its findings.
(Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
