Key Highlights
- Union Home Minister Amit Shah accuses INDIA bloc VP candidate Justice B Sudershan Reddy of prolonging Naxalism by two decades through Salwa Judum verdict
- 18 retired judges condemn Shah’s remarks as “prejudicial misinterpretation” of Supreme Court judgement
- Government data shows Naxalism affected districts reduced to just 38 from 126 since 2018
Opening Overview
The Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy has escalated into a major judicial dispute ahead of the Vice Presidential elections. Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s controversial remarks targeting INDIA bloc’s vice-presidential candidate Justice B Sudershan Reddy have sparked significant judicial backlash. Shah accused the former Supreme Court judge of “protecting Naxals” through the 2011 Salwa Judum verdict, claiming this decision prolonged Left Wing Extremism by two decades. The accusations emerged during the heated run-up to the Vice Presidential elections, where Justice Sudershan Reddy faces NDA candidate CP Radhakrishnan.
The Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum row has drawn sharp criticism from 18 retired judges who condemned the Home Minister’s statements as a dangerous misrepresentation of judicial reasoning. The Salwa Judum controversy centers on a 2011 Supreme Court judgement that declared the government-backed militia illegal and unconstitutional. Justice Reddy, along with Justice SS Nijjar, co-authored the verdict that disbanded the controversial anti-Naxal vigilante group in Chhattisgarh. Shah’s allegations in the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum dispute have triggered concerns about the impact on judicial independence, with retired justices warning against the “chilling effect” of mischaracterizing Supreme Court rulings for political gain.
Former Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, and eminent jurists issue a statement condemning Home Minister Amit Shah’s “unfortunate” and “prejudicial misinterpretation” of INDIA bloc Vice Presidential candidate, B. Sudershan Reddy’s judgment in… pic.twitter.com/AUxt0DcQ7e
— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) August 25, 2025
The Salwa Judum Verdict and Constitutional Challenge
- The Supreme Court declared Salwa Judum illegal on July 5, 2011, ordering immediate disbanding and recovery of all firearms
- Justice Sudershan Reddy co-authored the judgement finding the militia violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
The Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy stems from a government-backed militia formed in Chhattisgarh in 2005 that used armed tribal civilians to combat Maoist violence. The Supreme Court’s landmark verdict, delivered by Justices Reddy and SS Nijjar, declared the practice of arming tribal youths as Special Police Officers unconstitutional and ordered the immediate disbanding of the controversial vigilante group.
According to the Supreme Court judgement in the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum case, the militia represented an “abdication of constitutional responsibilities” by the state to provide appropriate security through a properly trained professional police force. The court found that the militia violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right to life and equality before law. The verdict specifically criticized the deployment of poorly trained tribal youth in counter-insurgency roles, highlighting severe human rights violations including the recruitment of child soldiers.
The Supreme Court directed the Chhattisgarh government to recover all firearms, ammunition, and accessories from Salwa Judum members and investigate all instances of alleged criminal activities by the militia. Multiple human rights organizations, including the Asian Centre for Human Rights, had documented evidence of child soldier recruitment, with over 12,000 minors reportedly used by Salwa Judum in Dantewada district alone. Despite these constitutional violations in the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum debate, Shah maintains that Salwa Judum was formed by Adivasis seeking education, roads, and healthcare for self-protection.
Government’s Anti-Naxal Strategy and Statistical Progress
- Naxalism affected districts reduced from 126 in 2018 to just 38 in 2024, with most affected districts declining from 12 to 6
- Over 8,000 Naxalites have abandoned violence in the last decade, contributing to significant operational success
The Modi government’s comprehensive counter-Naxalism strategy has achieved substantial statistical progress according to official data from the Press Information Bureau. While the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy continues, the total number of districts affected by Left Wing Extremism has dramatically decreased from 126 in 2018 to 38 in 2024, representing a 70% reduction in affected areas. Among these, the most severely affected districts have been halved from 12 to just 6, including four districts from Chhattisgarh, one from Jharkhand, and one from Maharashtra.
The government’s multi-dimensional approach combines security enforcement with inclusive development initiatives. Major security operations include Operation Green Hunt launched in 2009, the creation of Unified Command in 2010 for interstate coordination, and the deployment of specialized COBRA commandos. The SAMADHAN strategy emphasizes smart leadership, aggressive tactics, actionable intelligence, and technology-driven solutions to combat Left Wing Extremism.
Development measures include the Forest Rights Act of 2006, which empowers tribal communities, and the Aspirational Districts Programme targeting 112 under-developed districts including those affected by Naxalism. The government has established ITIs in LWE-affected districts through the ROSHNI scheme to enhance employability among tribal youth. According to official statistics, over 8,000 Naxalites have abandoned the path of violence in the last 10 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of rehabilitation policies despite the ongoing Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum political dispute.
Reduction in Naxalism affected districts in India and Naxalites rehabilitated (2018-2024)
Judicial Response and Political Implications
- 18 retired Supreme Court and High Court judges issued a joint statement condemning Shah’s remarks as misinterpretation
- Justice Sudershan Reddy emphasized the collective nature of Supreme Court verdicts, declining political confrontation
The judicial community’s response to the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum accusations has been swift and decisive. A group of 18 retired judges, including former Supreme Court justices Kurien Joseph, Madan B Lokur, J Chelameswar, and others, issued a joint statement condemning the Home Minister’s remarks as “unfortunate” and a “prejudicial misinterpretation” of the Supreme Court judgment. The retired justices warned that misrepresenting Supreme Court rulings by senior political leaders can have a chilling effect on judicial independence in the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum row.
Justice Sudershan Reddy’s measured response emphasized the institutional nature of judicial decisions regarding the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy. Speaking to PTI, he clarified that “the judgement on Salwa Judum was Supreme Court’s, not mine,” and stated his unwillingness to engage in political confrontation with the Home Minister. The former judge stressed the importance of maintaining “decency in debate” and characterized the upcoming vice-presidential election as “not a contest between two individuals, but two different ideologies”.
The Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy has broader implications for the separation of powers and constitutional governance. The retired judges’ statement urged restraint and civility in political discourse, particularly during high constitutional elections, noting that “while ideological battles may be part of campaigns, they must be conducted with dignity”. Former Chief Justice S Muralidhar, Justice Sanjib Banerjee, and Justice Anjana Prakash were among the signatories calling for responsible political discourse that does not undermine judicial authority.
Closing Assessment
The Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy reflects deeper tensions between security imperatives and constitutional rights in India’s fight against Left Wing Extremism. While government statistics demonstrate significant progress in reducing Naxalism affected districts from 126 to 38 since 2018, the debate over judicial decisions continues to influence political discourse in the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum case. Shah’s accusations against Justice Sudershan Reddy have transformed the vice-presidential election into an ideological battleground over approaches to internal security and tribal rights.
The unanimous criticism from 18 retired judges underscores the judiciary’s concern about political interference in judicial interpretation regarding the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum dispute. Their warning about the “chilling effect” on judicial independence highlights the constitutional significance of maintaining separation between political criticism and judicial decision-making. As India targets complete elimination of Naxalism by March 31, 2026, the Amit Shah Sudershan Reddy Salwa Judum controversy serves as a reminder that sustainable solutions require both effective security measures and constitutional adherence to fundamental rights.
