Retired Judges Slam Amit Shah Over Salwa Judum Remark
18 ex-judges call Shah’s attack on VP candidate Reddy a threat to judicial independence.
A group of 18 retired judges, including prominent former Supreme Court justices, has issued a strong rebuke of Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s recent remarks targeting opposition vice-presidential candidate B Sudershan Reddy. Shah’s accusation that Reddy “supported” Naxalism through his role in the 2011 Salwa Judum judgment has been labeled “unfortunate” and a “prejudicial misinterpretation” by the judges, who warn that such statements could undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The controversy stems from Shah’s comments made during a speech in Kerala on Friday, where he claimed that Reddy’s involvement in the Supreme Court’s Salwa Judum verdict enabled the persistence of Left Wing Extremism. “Sudershan Reddy is the person who helped Naxalism. He gave Salwa Judum judgment. If the Salwa Judum judgment had not been given, the Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020,” Shah stated. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Reddy and Justice S S Nijjar, declared the use of tribal youths as Special Police Officers in the anti-Maoist Salwa Judum initiative unconstitutional and ordered its disbandment.
In a joint statement, the retired judges, including former Supreme Court justices Kurien Joseph, Madan B Lokur, J Chelameswar, A K Patnaik, Abhay Oka, Gopala Gowda, and Vikramjit Sen, clarified that the Salwa Judum judgment “nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology.” They described Shah’s remarks as a misrepresentation that risks having a “chilling effect” on the judiciary, potentially shaking its independence. The statement was also signed by former high court chief justices Govind Mathur, S Muralidhar, and Sanjib Bannerjee, along with other retired high court judges, Prof Mohan Gopal, and senior advocate Sanjay Hegde.
Also Read: Sudershan Reddy Counters Amit Shah’s Criticism
The judges urged restraint in the vice-presidential campaign, emphasizing that ideological differences should be addressed with civility and dignity. “Out of respect for the office of the Vice President of India, it would be wise to refrain from name-calling,” they stated, calling for a focus on constructive discourse rather than personal attacks.
In response, Reddy, a former Supreme Court judge, declined to engage directly with Shah’s accusations, asserting that the Salwa Judum verdict was a decision of the Supreme Court, not his alone. Speaking on Saturday, he suggested that Shah’s comments may have stemmed from a lack of familiarity with the full judgment. “Had he read the complete judgment, he would not have made these remarks,” Reddy said.
The retired judges’ statement underscores broader concerns about the potential impact of political rhetoric on judicial integrity. They warned that mischaracterizing court rulings by high-ranking officials could erode public trust in the judiciary and intimidate judges, compromising the impartiality of the legal system. As the vice-presidential campaign continues, the controversy highlights the need for respectful and informed dialogue in political discourse.
