Is Justice B Sudershan Reddy the right pick for the post of Vice-President?
Amit Shah certainly doesn't believe so. The Union Home Minister asserted that the INDIA bloc should not have given Justice Reddy the chance to fight the election. He had his reasons.
"Sudershan Reddy is the person who helped Naxalism. He gave the Salwa Judum judgment. If the Salwa Judum judgment had not been given, Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020," Shah claimed in a speech in Kerala on August 22.
It was a strong statement. But a closer look shows that it doesn't hold up. Justice Reddy has been hailed by his backers as a progressive and democratic jurist, and his Salwa Judum judgment too reflects this.
In fact, if one goes by what the Home Minister said, it can be argued that the entire Supreme Court from 2007 to 2025 has been backing the Maoists.
Twenty-four judges had heard the Salwa Judum matter and issued orders against the Chhattisgarh government. The judges who heard the review petitions all agreed with the essence of Justice Reddy's original judgment. Ergo.
Does this then mean that the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution had been "abrogated" in this case? Does the Constitution and the Supreme Court's responsibility to uphold it no longer exist?
It might just be that the Home Minister has not been properly briefed about the fifth schedule of the Constitution in general and the judgment delivered in the Salwa Judum case in particular. Allow me to explain.
A hearing that began in 2007
The Bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Ravindran was the first to hear the Salwa Judum case in 2007. The following year, the case was heard by the then Chief Justice Balakrishnan and Justice Aftab Alam.
On March 31, 2008, Justice Balakrishnan said state support to Salwa Judum, a civilian militia mobilised to counter Naxalites in Chhattisgarh, would amount to abetting a crime. Justice Aftab Alam agreed that it was a serious matter and a cause of great concern.
On April 15, 2008, the Supreme Court asked the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to form an enquiry committee. Then, on December 16, 2008, Chief Justice Balakrishnan and Justice C Sathasivam asked the Central Government to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) on the NHRC report.
This case was heard by the Bench comprising Chief Justice Balakrishnan, Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Chauhan in 2009 followed by the Bench consisting of Chief Justice Balakrishnan, Justice Kapadia and Justice Aftab Alam in 2010.
In March 2010, the Supreme Court asked the petitioners to file a rehabilitation plan and get the consent of the people who will serve on a monitoring committee. By this time, Justice Balakrishnan had retired.
Justice Reddy's judgment and how it has stood the test of time
It was then that Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice SH Nijjar started hearing the case in 2011 and the Bench delivered a judgment on July 5 of that year. The judgment said that the state cannot outsource its duties to untrained vigilantes and this violated Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, including the right to life and equality of the Special Police Officers, as well as the right to life of villagers who are victims of the Salwa Judum.
The Bench also pointed out that it is rapacious state policies that encourage Naxalism. It must be underlined that the Bench did not support Naxalism at any point in time.
In September 2011, the Bench comprising Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Nijjar and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra started hearing a revision petition. Justice Kabir confirmed the judgment and acceded to the Centre's petition for revision only to the extent that the judgment would apply solely to Chhattisgarh.
The revision petition was heard by Justice Kabir, Justice Nijjar, Justice Chalameswar and Justice Pinaki Ghose. Justice Gogoi, Justice Kalifulla, Justice Madan Lokur, Justice UU Lalit, Justice MV Ramana, Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Bobde, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice SVN Batti, Justice BV Nagaratna and Justice Satish Sharma have also heard the matter from 2012 to 2025.
On May 15, 2025, Justice BV Nagaratna and Justice Satish Sharma upheld the order of July 5, 2011, observing it had "crystallised" the prayers in the petition.
They further observed: "We find that having regard to the situation that has emerged over the decades in the state of Chhattisgarh, it is necessary that specific steps are taken so as to bring about peace and rehabilitation of the areas requiring the attention of the State as well as the Central Government who would have to act in a coordinated manner.
"We note that it is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of the State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen."
No ideological sympathy shown towards Naxals
A reading of the directions issued by earlier Supreme Court benches and Justice Reddy's judgments shows that there was no ideological sympathy from the judiciary as a whole, and Justice Reddy individually, towards any ideology other than the principles laid out in the Constitution
Anyone who followed these cases will appreciate the progressive nature of the justices of the Supreme Court. All the 24 judges who heard the case were against the outsourcing of state violence by the Chhattisgarh government. All the judges who heard the revision petition were fully in agreement with the orders passed by Justice Sudershan Reddy and Justice Nijjar some 15 years ago.
It is clear that Justice Sudershan Reddy neither agreed with the philosophy of Naxalites nor endorsed their ways, let alone supporting "Naxal Terrorism". So, stating otherwise will be a travesty.
(Views are personal. The author was editor of several Telugu newspapers including Udayam, Vaartha, Andhra Jyothy and Sakshi.)
