Responding to the remarks made by Amit Shah concerning the Salwa Judum judgment, Justice Sudershan Reddy firmly stated that the ruling in question was not his personal opinion but rather the official decision of the Supreme Court of India. On Saturday, the Opposition’s vice-presidential nominee reacted strongly to the Union Home Minister’s charge that he had “supported or endorsed Naxalism” through the 2011 judgment. Justice Reddy clarified that such an interpretation was completely misplaced and emphasized that the statement from Shah most likely came from not having read the judgment in its entirety or with sufficient care.
Amit Shah had earlier asserted that Justice Reddy, being the author of the Supreme Court verdict that struck down the state-sponsored Salwa Judum initiative, had in effect provided encouragement to the spread of Naxalism. He argued that had the apex court permitted tribal youths to continue working as armed auxiliaries in the fight against Maoist insurgents, the problem of Naxal violence “would have been wiped out by the year 2020.” The Home Minister also went further to allege that the Congress party’s choice of Justice Reddy as its vice-presidential candidate was itself an indication of ideological sympathy with Naxal groups, claiming that this association would weaken the Opposition’s moral and political standing, especially in states such as Kerala.
In his response, Justice Reddy explained that he would not be drawn into an open or personal confrontation with the Union Home Minister. He reiterated instead that the ruling was not reflective of his individual beliefs but represented the considered opinion of the Supreme Court as an institution. He pointed out that although he was the judge who authored the text of the judgment, the verdict itself belonged entirely to the court. The decision was delivered by a bench that included another judge, and despite numerous attempts over the years, the ruling was never overturned or reversed, which demonstrated its enduring legal authority and soundness.
Justice Reddy further added that it would have been far more appropriate if Amit Shah had carefully examined and studied the complete contents of the judgment before making such sweeping comments in the public domain. “I would have greatly preferred it if the Home Minister had read through the judgment line by line. If he had actually done that, I strongly believe that he would not have chosen to make such a statement,” Reddy remarked while emphasizing the need for accuracy in public discourse, especially from senior leaders.
The background of the Salwa Judum verdict provides important context for this debate. Salwa Judum was launched as a state-supported militia movement in Chhattisgarh, where tribal youths were recruited, trained, and armed to function as Special Police Officers, also known as “Koya Commandos.” Their role was to engage directly in combat against Maoist rebels operating in the region. However, in December 2011, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Sudershan Reddy examined the issue in detail and ruled the practice to be unconstitutional.
The court held that arming civilians and assigning them duties of maintaining law and order, which is the fundamental responsibility of the state, was impermissible under the Constitution. The verdict ordered that all tribal recruits working under the Salwa Judum banner be disarmed immediately and made it clear that the state could not outsource essential security and policing duties to untrained civilian groups. This judgment became a landmark ruling, shaping the debate on how the state should handle the Naxalite insurgency without violating constitutional rights and protections.
