The Salwa Judum Judgment and Recent Judicial Statements

Source : Indian Express  

Introduction 

The Salwa Judum judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2011, is a key ruling on the issue of state-supported vigilantism and the protection of fundamental rights during counter-insurgency efforts. In the case of Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh,2011 the Court investigated serious human rights violations linked to the Salwa Judum movement in Chhattisgarh. The Court also laid down important rules on the limits of state power when dealing with internal security problems. Recently, this judgment has come back into focus after controversial comments made by the Union Home Minister, which led to a rare and strong reaction from retired judges.  

What Led to the Salwa Judum Judgment by the Supreme Court? 

• The Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment in the Salwa Judum case was delivered by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar. It was based on a writ petition filed in 2007 by sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, and former IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma. 
• The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Salwa Judum movement, which started as a public awareness campaign ("Jan Jagran") in 2005, but later became a state-supported militia made up mostly of tribal youth working as Special Police Officers (SPOs). 
• Between 2005 and 2011, the Bastar region saw serious violence, with official data showing 422 Maoists, 1,019 civilians, and 726 security personnel killed. In response, the state government recruited tribal youth, some as young as 18 and with limited education, gave them weapons, and sent them into anti-Maoist operations. 
• The petitioners argued that this violated the fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. They said that the Salwa Judum created an illegal armed group, blurred the line between civilians and combatants, put untrained youth in violent situations, and led to displacement and human rights violations. 
• The state defended its actions by saying that recruitment was voluntary, the minimum age was 18, there were background checks, and basic education and training in weapons, law, and human rights were provided. The Chhattisgarh government also said that the SPOs helped protect relief camps, offered jobs to poor youth, and were better suited for local terrain than regular police. 
• However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It found serious constitutional problems in the way the state handled the matter. The Court said the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 gave the government too much power to appoint SPOs without proper checks, unlike the Indian Police Act, 1861, which required approval from a magistrate.

What was the Court Observations and Constitutional Analysis ? 

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Salwa Judum case showed a strong focus on constitutional values and human rights. 
• The Court clearly rejected the state's claim that tribal youth with very little education could be used in complex anti-Maoist operations. The Court said it is unrealistic to believe that young people who may not have even completed fifth grade could understand and be trained in such serious matters. 
• The Court also strongly disagreed with the state’s self-defence argument. It said that expecting such youth to understand the legal meaning of self-defence was both unrealistic and dangerous. This shows that the Court believes security concerns cannot override basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 
• Under Article 14 (Right to Equality), the Court said it was unfair and discriminatory to expect poorly trained and low-paid Special Police Officers (SPOs) to do the same work as regular police officers. 
• Under Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity), the Court criticized the government for treating tribal youth as if their lives were not valuable. The Court said that using citizens as tools in violent operations showed a lack of respect for their dignity and humanity. 
• Overall, the judgment went beyond technical legal issues and questioned the state’s responsibility to protect the dignity and rights of its people, especially the most vulnerable. 

Why Did Retired Judges Condemn the Interpretation of the Salwa Judum Judgment? 

• The recent comments made by the Home Minister about Justice B. Sudershan Reddy have led to a strong response from the legal community, especially 18 retired judges, including seven former Supreme Court judges, who issued a joint statement. They said the Minister had wrongly interpreted the Salwa Judum judgment in a way that could harm the image of the judiciary. 
• Their statement raised important constitutional issues. First, it warned that when a senior political leader misrepresents a Supreme Court judgment, it could discourage judges from making independent decisions, which affects judicial independence—a basic part of the Constitution. 
• Second, the judges pointed out that Supreme Court judgments are not personal opinions but are the result of collective decision-making by a Bench. This is important to keep public trust in the judiciary and to protect the institutional nature of how constitutional decisions are made. 
• Finally, the statement stressed the need for respectful political dialogue, especially when referring to constitutional authorities like the Vice President. It called for political leaders to speak civilly and with dignity, showing concern about the declining tone of public debate in Indian democracy. 

Conclusion 

The Salwa Judum judgment affirms that even in times of serious internal conflict, state actions must align with constitutional values and human dignity. It reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of fundamental rights and the rule of law. The case stands as a lasting reminder that security measures must operate within the framework of constitutional governance.