NEW DELHI: If the Congress-led India bloc’s Vice President candidate, B Sudershan Reddy, had not delivered the Salwa Judum judgment, the extremist Left movement in the country would have ended before 2020, Union home minister and senior BJP leader Amit Shah on Friday accused his of “supporting” Naxalism.Speaking after inaugurating the Manorama News conclave organised by the Malayala Manorama group in Delhi, Shah remarked that the Congress party’s chances of winning in Kerala had further diminished due to its choice of candidate for the Vice-President post.
“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. He is the person who was inspired by the ideology that gave Salwa Judum judgment,” PTI quoted Shah said during a question-and-answer session at the conclave. The statement refers to the December 2011 Supreme Court judgment by Justice Reddy, which ruled that using tribal youths as Special Police Officers—whether called ‘Koya Commandos’, Salwa Judum, or by any other name—in the fight against Maoist insurgents was illegal and unconstitutional, ordering their immediate disarmament. Shah added that Kerala had borne the brunt of Naxalism. “People of Kerala will certainly see that the Congress party, under the pressure of Left parties, is fielding a candidate who supported Naxalism and used a pious forum like the Supreme Court,” he asserted. The ruling NDA had selected Maharashtra Governor C P Radhakrishnan, a seasoned BJP leader from Tamil Nadu with an RSS background, as its vice-presidential candidate.
What was Salwa Judam judgment?
In 2011, Reddy gave a landmark judgment which declared the controversial Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh as unconstitutional. The Salwa Judum, which was accused of human rights abuses, was a state-sponsored militia raised in 2005 to counter Maoist insurgency. It comprised largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms. The militia was later disbanded. His ruling, rooted in the protection of fundamental rights, underscored that state-sponsored vigilantism could not replace constitutional policing. In Nandini Sundar versus state of Chhattisgarh, the bench led by Justice Reddy held that arming tribal youth as special police officers under Salwa Judum was illegal and unconstitutional.
