News– A group of former judges and senior lawyers condemned the Union Home Minister for “misinterpreting” the Supreme Court’s 2011 Salwa Judum judgment. The Minister said that if Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (retd), the Opposition’s Vice-Presidential candidate, had not delivered the ruling, “Naxalism would have ended by 2020.”
About Salwa Judum Case (2011)
Background
|
About the Petition
- In 2007, Nandini Sundar (sociologist), Ramachandra Guha (historian), and others filed a petition before the Supreme Court.
- They challenged the constitutionality of Salwa Judum on the following grounds:
- Violation of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life with dignity).
- Widespread human rights abuses, including displacement of tribal communities.
- Blurring of lines between civilians and combatants.
- Exploitation of vulnerable youth, exposing them to extreme violence without training or protection.
Defence of the State and Union
- Both the Union Government and the Chhattisgarh Government defended the practice.
- They argued that:
- They argued that SPO recruitment was voluntary, mostly included victims of Maoist violence, and drew on their local knowledge.
- The scheme provided livelihoods in remote areas, and SPOs were said to be effective in protecting camps and resisting Maoist attacks.
About the Supreme Court Judgment (2011)
- A Bench headed by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy delivered the judgment.
- The Court declared Salwa Judum unconstitutional and held that:
- Deploying ill-trained, barely literate tribal youth in counterinsurgency was discriminatory (violated Article 14).
- Exposing them to life-threatening risks without safeguards violated Article 21.
- Arming civilians blurred the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, escalating violence.
Court Directions:
- Immediate disbanding of Salwa Judum.
- SPOs should not be used in counterinsurgency.
- Only properly trained police and paramilitary forces should conduct anti-Maoist operations.
