Context: Recently, the Union Home Minister of India accused Opposition’s Vice-Presidential candidate Justice B Sudershan Reddy (retd) of aiding Naxalism by delivering the landmark Supreme Court judgment that banned Salwa Judum in 2011.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Salwa Judum; Salwa Judum Judgement.
Mains: Government approach to counter the challenges posed by LWE.
Justice B Sudershan Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, headed the Bench that in 2011 delivered the landmark ruling in Nandini Sundar v State of Chhattisgarh, which ended Salwa Judum.
What was Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh?
- Salwa Judum was a state-backed vigilante movement launched to counter Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh. Tribal youth were recruited as Special Police Officers (SPOs), popularly called Koya Commandos.
- Recruitment was voluntary for those 18 and above, with character verification and preferably Class 5 education. Preference was given to victims of Maoist violence who wished to resist them.
- Recruitment was done under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007, which gave wide powers to the Superintendent of Police.
- Most SPOs were young tribal men from Naxal-affected villages. They were armed for self-defence but also used in counter-insurgency operations with police and paramilitary forces.
- Their duties included guiding forces in forests, translating, gathering intelligence, and spotting Maoist movements. Each SPO received about ₹3,000 per month as honorarium.
- The government justified Salwa Judum as both a security measure and a livelihood source for local youth.
In 2007, sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, and former IAS officer EAS Sarma filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the practice of Salwa Judum.
Salwa Judum Judgement 2011:
- In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), the Supreme Court held that Salwa Judum violated Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life with dignity), and therefore ordered its disbandment.
- The SC found that SPOs were poorly educated and inadequately trained, yet expected to perform duties of regular police, making it discriminatory. Arming such youth exposed them to life-threatening risks, which could not be justified as livelihood.
- The SC criticised the state for treating citizens as expendable instruments of counter-insurgency, undermining their dignity. It directed that only trained police and paramilitary forces should conduct such operations.