Following his nomination as the Vice-Presidential candidate by the INDIA bloc, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy has faced accusations from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP holds him responsible for Maoist violence in Chhattisgarh, alleging that his ruling halted the BJP-sponsored Salwa Judum campaign. This violent movement led to severe human rights abuses, including the forced evacuation of 650 villages, the burning of dozens of villages, hundreds of rapes, and numerous killings. Over one lakh people were displaced from their homes and villages, with thousands still missing. Under the pretext of combating Naxalism, police and paramilitary forces carried out large-scale massacres of villagers, as confirmed by reports from the CBI, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Scheduled Tribes Commission. However, no officials responsible for these atrocities have been punished to date.
Tribal children and former Naxalites were recruited as Special Police Officers (SPOs), effectively pitting tribals against their own communities to facilitate the corporate exploitation of Bastar’s natural resources. Even after the Supreme Court banned Salwa Judum, this plunder has continued unabated, with no reduction in the oppression and human rights violations faced by tribals. The 2011 Census recorded a decline of over 2% in Bastar’s tribal population as a result. Justice Sudershan Reddy clarified that the decision to ban Salwa Judum was a Supreme Court ruling, not his personal verdict. In light of the BJP’s attacks, revisiting the Supreme Court’s ruling is essential, as a party that disregards the Constitution and its judgments cannot uphold democracy or respect human rights. The BJP has become a tool of corporate interests.
The Supreme Court’s analysis exposed the anti-people policies of the BJP-led Chhattisgarh government, which, under the guise of suppressing Naxalism, oppressed tribals, violated their human rights, and enabled the looting of Bastar’s mineral wealth. The Court criticized the government’s neoliberal and globalization-driven policies, where the poor bear the “cost” while the dominant sections of society reap the benefits. Citing a Planning Commission Expert Group report, the Court noted: “This has forced tribals to face displacement… destroying their social organization, cultural identity, and resources… with the intent of seizing their resources and undermining the dignity of the deprived” (Para 6). Quoting economist Amit Bhaduri, the Court described this model as “developmental terrorism,” where the state perpetuates violence against the poor in the name of development, serving corporate elites with support from the IMF, World Bank, and self-interested political classes (Para 14).
The policies adopted to ensure high economic growth and resource exploitation for the dominant classes have significantly increased the number of deprived and marginalized people stripped of human dignity. The much-touted economic growth has only entrenched income inequality. Land acquisition processes and resultant people’s movements across the country underscore this reality. The Court acknowledged that between 1950 and 1990, 21.3 million people were displaced due to development projects, of which 40% (8.5 million) were tribals, with only 25% rehabilitated. Post-1990, with liberalization and globalization policies, this number has likely doubled. This “dark side of globalization” sacrifices the marginalized—mostly tribals, Dalits, and economically weaker sections—for the benefit of a few elites. The Court remarked that the Indian state’s “false development paradigm lacks a human face” (Para 14) and that it has “directly violated constitutional norms and values by supporting predatory forms of capitalism” (Para 12).
Chhattisgarh, home to 23% of India’s iron ore reserves, is no exception. Land acquisition for corporate giants like Tata was carried out at gunpoint, and protests against land grabs for power plants face brutal repression. The notorious Jindal group, infamous for mineral exploitation, enjoys the favor of BJP governments in Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. The Court stated that these policies “violate the principles considered the foundation of governance” (Para 13). The key question was whether the BJP-led government adhered to constitutional values in sponsoring Salwa Judum. The Court’s answer was a clear “No,” as its policies violated Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and dignity) on a massive scale.
The Court held both Maoists/Naxalites and the state government responsible for human rights violations in Chhattisgarh (Para 5). It rejected the state’s claim that it had a constitutional right to “persistently and endlessly violate human rights” under the pretext of curbing Naxalism or to adopt Maoist methods (Para 6). The Court dismissed the argument that repression and ruthless violence were the only options to establish constitutional order. It also condemned the BJP government’s tendency to label anyone questioning human rights violations as a Maoist sympathizer (Para 4). In its order (Para 75), the Court questioned the appointments of Koya Commandos or SPOs, ordering their disbandment, expressing concern for both innocent tribals and the SPOs, who were “given guns instead of books and tasked with guarding the plunder of forests” (Para 18).
The Chhattisgarh government falsely claimed that SPOs were part of regular security forces, despite their temporary appointments and meager remuneration, violating their human rights. The state also falsely asserted that SPOs were adequately trained and not used in direct combat. The Court found that their primary task of identifying Maoists and their sympathizers put them directly in harm’s way, leaving them vulnerable after their tenure. Between 2004 and 2011, 291 of 6,500 SPOs (about 5%) were killed, compared to 1% of regular security forces. Many SPOs also perished in Naxal attacks on relief camps. The Court highlighted that SPOs were poorly educated, incapable of understanding modern self-defense concepts, and prone to misusing weapons. Many were victims of Naxal persecution or former Naxalites, driven by anger and vengeance, which dehumanized them. Such emotions have no place in a disciplined force, as SPOs could misuse weapons to settle personal scores.
The Court’s concerns were validated by the National Human Rights Commission, which reported instances of looting, arson, and violence by SPOs and security forces (Para 59). SPOs attacked anti-Salwa Judum activists and restricted civilian movement. They were implicated in attacks on villages like Morpalli, Tadmetla, and Timapuram, where homes were burned, murders committed, and rapes occurred. SPOs obstructed relief efforts, including those led by Swami Agnivesh. They established a parallel authority, with the state admitting that 1,200 SPOs (20-40% of the total) were dismissed for disciplinary violations—an unprecedented level of indiscipline. No criminal action or FIRs were filed against them, with investigations being mere formalities. The Court remarked that such inquiries “do not meet the requirements of the law” and ordered a CBI probe into allegations raised by Swami Agnivesh.
The Court’s observations questioned the state’s decision to integrate SPOs into regular security forces, even relaxing eligibility criteria. Instead of learning from the ruling, the state attempted to circumvent it through cabinet decisions and ordinances. The 81-paragraph ruling was criticized by the BJP as an encroachment on the executive’s domain. The Court clarified: “When the judiciary questions policies to combat terrorism and extremism, it does not intend to interfere with security concerns. The judiciary intervenes to protect constitutional norms and values, ensuring fundamental rights like equality and the right to life” (Para 68). BJP leader Arun Jaitley called the ruling “ideologically driven,” a criticism echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah. The judiciary’s efforts to uphold constitutional principles are discredited, and Naxalism is treated as a “law and order” issue to be resolved through repression, while the root causes lie in socio-economic policies.
The Court’s verdict evaluates governments against the constitutional philosophy that “rejects socio-economic policies fostering discontent among the poor” (Para 20). Yet, the state subsidizes the private sector while lamenting a lack of resources for welfare programs (Para 15). The verdict clearly states that the government, not any extra-constitutional authority, is responsible for protecting citizens’ lives and property. The BJP’s criticism reveals its alignment with predatory capitalism, with little regard for the Constitution. The attack on Justice Reddy underscores the BJP’s disregard for the Constitution, democracy, and human rights.
Leave a Reply