Who is a ‘Naxal’?

LAST FRIDAY, Home Minister Amit Shah, during a sudden tirade against the INDIA Bloc’s Vice Presidential Candidate former Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (who served as a judge at the Supreme Court between 2007 and 2011), accused the latter of being a supporter of the Naxalite movement. Shah particularly brought to attention Justice Reddy’s judgement in 2011 in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh directing the disbandment of the “Salwa Judum”, a militia consisting of tribal youth from Chhattisgarh who were paid by the State to undertake counterinsurgency work against Naxalite operations in the region.  Shah went so far as to allege that if not for Justice Reddy’s judgement, the central government would have wiped off the Naxalites from the tribal area.

The home minister’s allegations have been retorted through a strong, collective condemnation by several retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, as well as a senior advocate and a jurist. In their public statement released today morning, the retired judges have termed the remarks “unfortunate”, and noted that the Nandini Sundar decision, neither expressly nor by implication, lends support to Naxalism or its ideology. 

The statement further noted: 

“Prejudical misinterpretation of a judgment of the Supreme Court by a high political functionary is likely to have a chilling effect on the judges of the Supreme Court, shaking the independence of the judiciary”.  

The retired judges have also urged that political campaigns for gubernatorial posts be conducted with civility and dignity. The name calling of candidates and attacking them in lieu of their alleged ideology, the judges noted, must cease. 

How the Salwa Judum case has stood the test of time

At this point, it might be fruitful to try and understand how the judgement in the Salwa Judum case may have provoked the home minister. In the case brought to the Court by senior academics Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and former senior bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma, while laying down certain directions for the Union  and Chhattisgarh government, Justice Sudershan Reddy observed as follows:-

“Both the Union of India, and the State of Chattisgarh, have sought to rationalize the use of SPOs in Chattisgarh, in the mode and manner discussed at length above, on the ground that they are effective in combating Maoist/Naxalite activities and violence, and that they are "force multipliers." As we have pointed out hereinabove, the adverse effects on society, both current and prospective, are horrific. Such policies by the State violate both Article 14 and Article 21, of those being employed as SPOs in Chattisgarh and used in counter-insurgency measures against Maoists/Naxalites, as well as of citizenry living in those areas. The effectiveness of the force ought not to be, and cannot be, the sole yardstick to judge constitutional permissibility. Whether SPOs have been "effective" against Maoist/Naxalite activities in Chattisgarh, it would seem to be a dubious, if not a debunked, proposition given the state of affairs in Chattisgarh. Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that indeed the SPOs were effective against Maoists/Naxalites, the doubtful gains are accruing only by the incurrence of a massive loss of fealty to the Constitution, and damage to the social order. The "force" as claimed by the State, in the instant matters, is inexorably leading to the loss of the force of the Constitution. Constitutional fealty does not, cannot and ought not to permit either the use of such a force or its multiplication. Constitutional propriety is not a matter of throwing around arbitrarily selected, and inanely used, phrases such as "force multipliers." Constitutional adjudication, and protection of civil liberties, by this Court is a far, far more sacred…duty to be swayed by such arguments and justifications.”