Union home minister Amit Shah’s accusation that Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, the Opposition’s candidate for Vice President, supported Naxalism through the 2011 Salwa Judum ruling has drawn a strong response from 18 former judges of the Supreme Court and various high courts, who warned that misinterpretation of the verdict could have far-reaching implications for judicial independence.
The former judges emphasised that Shah’s reading of the judgment, which outlawed Chhattisgarh’s use of armed vigilantes against the Naxalite insurgency, was not only inaccurate but also potentially damaging to the credibility of the judiciary, and they maintained that the verdict in no way endorsed Naxalite ideology, according to The Wire.
They argued that prejudicial interpretations by senior political leaders risk exerting undue pressure on the functioning of the Supreme Court, and they viewed this as a threat that could shake the principle of judicial independence.
The statement, endorsed by seven former Supreme Court judges including A.K. Patnaik, Madan B. Lokur, J. Chelameswar, Kurien Joseph and Abhay Oka, also noted the need for political campaigns to remain dignified even when ideological differences exist, and it urged restraint from personal attacks on individuals holding or contesting for constitutional offices.
The judges stressed that such public commentary from top political functionaries could create a chilling effect on judicial decision-making, and they underlined that criticisms should not be framed in terms of ideology or intent.
The 2011 judgment, delivered by Justice Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar, came after years of hearings in a public interest litigation filed by academic Nandini Sundar and others on behalf of adivasi victims, and it built on earlier observations from the Supreme Court, which had warned that state support to Salwa Judum amounted to complicity in crime.