Amit Shah Criticized for Attacking Salwa Judum Verdict After 14 Years: Sudershan Reddy’s Surprising Response

August 25, 2025 – In a significant political showdown, former Supreme Court judge and vice-presidential candidate, B. Sudershan Reddy, expressed his surprise at Home Minister Amit Shah’s recent comments criticizing his 2011 Salwa Judum ruling. Shah had accused Reddy of indirectly fostering Naxalism, blaming his judgment for a prolonged insurgency. However, Reddy did not back down. He remarked, “I’m a little surprised the mighty Home Minister is raising this issue after 14 years.”

Amit Shah’s Attack on the 2011 Ruling

The issue traces back to 2005, when the Salwa Judum militia was formed by the Chhattisgarh government as an attempt to counter the Maoist insurgency in the region. This militia, mostly comprising tribal youth, was accused of being a violent force used to wage war against the insurgents. The government backed the militia as a means of self-defence for local communities who were caught in the crossfire of the Maoist insurgency.

In 2011, the Supreme Court, under the judgment by Justice Reddy, declared the Salwa Judum unconstitutional, ordering it to be disbanded. The Court argued that the militia violated human rights and that the state could not outsource the responsibility of maintaining law and order to untrained civilians. Shah’s renewed attack, claiming that the ruling had helped perpetuate Naxal terrorism, was seen as a sharp rebuke against Reddy’s judicial legacy.

Reddy Fires Back: A Responsible State and the Rule of Law

In his response, Reddy emphasized the critical importance of state responsibility in counterinsurgency operations. He categorically rejected Shah’s arguments, pointing out that militia groups like Salwa Judum only compounded the violence in the state, especially when they lacked the training and professionalism needed for law enforcement.

Reddy stated, “The judgment did not remove the right of the state to act against violence. It merely stated that the state must use professional forces rather than untrained, informal groups.” He also mentioned that the judgment aimed to prevent armed tribal youth from being manipulated into a dangerous and ineffective role. He stressed that Salwa Judum militia members had not received formal training, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and, in many cases, exacerbating the violence.

Additionally, Reddy pointed out the dangerous precedent of allowing untrained individuals to be armed. He argued that in the long run, it was the state’s responsibility to provide proper training and support to law enforcement personnel, not to allow unaccountable militias to take up arms.

Amit Shah’s Criticism of Judicial Independence

While Reddy remained focused on defending the rule of law, other voices within the political spectrum have echoed his concerns about judicial independence. Following Shah’s statements, a group of 18 retired judges from across India voiced strong disapproval of his remarks. They condemned the attack on Reddy, stating that such comments were not only a misinterpretation of the verdict but also dangerous for the independence of the judiciary.

These judges pointed out that when high-ranking officials like Amit Shah publicly discredit judicial rulings, it can lead to a dangerous precedent where the judiciary is undermined in favor of political motives. The retired judges issued a statement calling for more respect for the judiciary, especially when it comes to politically sensitive issues. They warned that undermining judicial independence could jeopardize the integrity of the entire legal system.

One of the retired judges argued, “The Home Minister’s remarks threaten the very foundation of India’s democratic principles and independence of the judiciary. When such criticisms are based on political narratives, they erode the confidence that the public has in the courts and the judicial system.”

Maoist Violence Victims Add Their Voices

Adding to the debate, several victims of Maoist violence from Chhattisgarh have spoken out, some of whom directly blamed Reddy’s judgment for leaving them vulnerable to further attacks. In a series of letters to opposition MPs, they argued that the disbanding of Salwa Judum had exposed them to Naxal violence. One deputy sarpanch who had been severely injured in a Maoist attack after the militia was disbanded recounted his experience. He accused the Supreme Court ruling of making his community more exposed to Naxal insurgents.

Other victims, such as the father of a young girl who lost her foot in an IED blast, expressed similar frustrations. The victim’s family held Reddy’s verdict responsible for the suffering they endured. These individuals have since requested that members of the opposition reconsider their support for Reddy’s vice-presidential candidacy.

A Closer Look at the Salwa Judum

The Salwa Judum militia was first formed in 2005 by the Chhattisgarh government to protect tribal people from the rising Maoist insurgency in the region. However, its methods came under severe scrutiny. Human rights organizations and critics of the militia accused it of perpetrating violence against civilians, including sexual violence, torture, and forced displacement of tribespeople.

Despite these accusations, the Salwa Judum continued to operate for several years with the support of the state government. However, in 2011, Justice Reddy, who had been involved in the case, declared that the state cannot allow unregulated militia groups to bear arms. The judgment also stated that tribal youth should not be forced into law enforcement duties without proper training and safeguards.

The judgment was seen as a landmark decision in India’s legal history, particularly in upholding the rights of vulnerable tribal communities and ensuring state accountability in counterinsurgency operations.

Political Fallout and the Vice-Presidential Race

Reddy’s response to Shah’s criticism is just one of many political challenges he is facing as he campaigns for the role of Vice President of India. Although his Salwa Judum verdict has long been debated, it remains a point of contention for those who believe it left a gap in tribal security. His critics argue that while the judgment was legally sound, it may have left many tribal communities without the necessary protection against Maoist violence.

At the same time, Reddy’s defenders point out that his judgment was based on constitutional principles, ensuring that the Indian state does not outsource state power to unregulated militia groups. The ruling highlighted the importance of human rights and the legal rights of marginalized communities who were often caught in the crossfire between the state and Maoist insurgents.

A Divisive Issue

As the battle over the Salwa Judum verdict continues to dominate headlines, it seems that this issue will play a significant role in the upcoming vice-presidential elections. Whether this controversy will have a lasting impact on Reddy’s candidacy or whether it will fade into the background of a more complex political race remains to be seen. For now, the debate over judicial independence, tribal rights, and the appropriate means of fighting Maoist insurgencies is far from settled.