Justice B Sudershan Reddy said the Salwa Judum verdict was the Supreme Court’s collective decision, not his personal stand, after Amit Shah accused him of “supporting Naxalism.” He stressed, “The judgment is not mine, the judgment is of the Supreme Court.”
New Delhi: A political debate has started after Union Home Minister Amit Shah targeted former Supreme Court judge and current Opposition vice-presidential candidate, Justice B Sudershan Reddy, over the famous Salwa Judum judgment.
Shah accused him of “supporting” Naxalism by delivering the verdict that banned the use of tribal youths as Special Police Officers against Maoists.
Justice Reddy, however, has chosen not to engage in a direct confrontation with the Home Minister. He clarified that the decision was not a personal opinion but a ruling of the Supreme Court of India.
In July 2011, a bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice S S Nijjar, had ordered the disbanding of Salwa Judum, a controversial anti-Maoist vigilante movement in Chhattisgarh.
The bench held that recruiting tribal youths as Special Police Officers to fight Maoists was “illegal and unconstitutional.”
While addressing a gathering in Kerala on Friday, Home Minister Shah strongly criticised the judgment.
He said,
“Sudershan Reddy is the person who helped Naxalism. He gave Salwa Judum judgment. If the Salwa Judum judgement had not been given, the Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020. He is the person who was inspired by the ideology that gave Salwa Judam judgment.”
In response, Justice Reddy firmly defended his position, pointing out that the judgment was the collective decision of the Supreme Court and not his personal act.
He said,
“I do not wish to join an issue directly with the Honourable Home Minister of India, whose constitutional duty and obligation is to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen, irrespective of ideological differences. Secondly, I have authored the judgment. The judgment is not mine, the judgment is of the Supreme Court.”
He further underlined that another judge had also been part of the bench, and several later attempts to get the verdict overturned had failed.
On being asked about the substance of the verdict, Justice Reddy refused to go into details, maintaining judicial discipline.
Justice Reddy said,
“On merits of the judgement, I would not speak because I am trained by my peers that one should not speak about the greatness of one’s own judgement. It is for the people to judge. It is not my personal document. I wish the Honourable Home Minister could have himself read the whole judgement instead of getting briefed by, I do not know… he would not have that much time to read the judgement which runs into about 40 pages. If he would have read the judgement, perhaps he would not have made that comment. That’s all I say and leave it there,”
The former judge also stressed that the tone of the debate should remain respectful. He said,
“There must be decency in the debate.”
Justice Reddy concluded that he did not want to disturb the political decorum and would not comment further on Shah’s remarks.
The Salwa Judum issue has remained one of the most debated topics in India’s battle against Maoist insurgency.
The 2011 judgment was hailed by human rights activists as a safeguard against state-sponsored vigilantism, while critics, including Amit Shah, argue that it weakened the fight against Naxalism.
Background
Kochi: On August 22, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had launched a sharp attack on retired Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy, who was declared as the INDIA bloc’s nominee for the Vice President election.
Mr Shah had accused him of “supporting Naxalism” because of his role in a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2011.
During his speech at an event in Kerala, Mr Shah had referred to Justice Reddy’s ruling in the Salwa Judum case. In that decision, Justice Reddy had held that the practice of creating state-backed militias – where tribal youths were armed and made “special police officers” – was both illegal and unconstitutional.
He had also ordered that these militias be disarmed and had advised the Chhattisgarh government to address the root causes that fuelled the Naxal movement instead of relying on vigilante groups.
Mr Shah had cited this judgment to argue that Justice Reddy’s decision had actually aided the Naxal cause.
According to the Home Minister, if the verdict had not been passed, the problem of Left-wing extremism might have been resolved years earlier.
He had declared,
“Sudershan Reddy is the person who helped Naxalism. He gave the Salwa Judum judgment. If that judgement had not been given… Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020. He is the person who, inspired by that ideology, gave the judgment.”
He had further told voters in Kerala that they must take note of the Congress party’s choice for Vice President.
Mr Shah had said,
“The people of Kerala will certainly see that the Congress, under pressure from Left parties, is fielding a candidate who supported Naxalism with a forum like the Supreme Court,”
The Home Minister had also claimed that Kerala itself had been “suffering” from Naxal activities, a point which BJP insiders had echoed earlier in the week when they told NDTV that Justice Reddy’s past judicial decisions had weakened India’s fight against Naxalism.
Party sources within the BJP had also recalled that when Justice Reddy was appointed as the first Lokayukta of Goa, the Congress and its ally NCP had themselves opposed his appointment, calling him a “yes man” of then Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar.
The Vice President election had been scheduled for September 9, with Justice Reddy set to face the NDA’s candidate, Maharashtra Governor CP Radhakrishnan. The contest carried significance not only for the high constitutional office but also for its political implications in southern India, since both candidates hailed from the region.
According to party sources, the BJP had nominated Mr Radhakrishnan, a senior Tamil leader, to apply electoral pressure on the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu ahead of upcoming polls.
Initially, it had been speculated that the Opposition INDIA bloc might field a Tamil candidate in response, but they eventually chose Justice Reddy, who came from Hyderabad.
In the run-up to the election, Justice Reddy had spoken to NDTV, making it clear that he did not intend to engage in personal attacks during the campaign.
“No personal attacks are expected. I won’t make any personal remark… and I hope Mr Radhakrishnan will also refrain. He is very experienced, has been around for a long time.”
Justice Reddy had also dismissed efforts to portray the election as a regional clash between Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
“What is this Tamil Nadu vs Telangana? We are both Indian citizens, and India has no separate citizenship for Tamil Nadu and Telangana. You (the media) are setting a narrative,”
he had said.
The election was necessitated after the then Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, resigned in July citing health issues.
However, political observers had suggested that his resignation might also have been influenced by the government’s displeasure over his role in matters connected to the impeachment proceedings involving Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Verma.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Amit Shah
