Home Minister Amit Shah has accused the Opposition’s vice presidential election candidate Justice B Sudershan Reddy (retd) of supporting Naxalism by passing a judgment that ended the practice of appointing Special Police Officers to fight the Maoists in Chhattisgarh. What was the context of the case, what did the state argue, and what did the SC rule?Union Home Minister Amit Shah last week accused Justice B Sudershan Reddy, the opposition alliance’s candidate for Vice President, of “supporting Naxalism”.Justice 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, the practice of using tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to counter the Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh.Shah said in Kerala on Friday that had Justice Reddy not delivered the Salwa Judum judgment, “the Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020”. The remarks have been criticised by the legal fraternity, who have said that a judicial ruling cannot be equated with the personal views of a judge.Read | A look at rise and fall of Salwa Judum amid Amit Shah’s Naxalism barb at Oppn’s Vice-President candidate“A judgment is always open for critical analysis, but motives cannot be attached to a judge who has authored the judgment. The judge adjudicates the issue based on the Constitution and not his personal philosophy or political leaning. To find motive or personal interest of a judge in a given judgment is certainly scandalous and is not permissible,” Justice Govind Mathur, former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, told The Indian Express.The election for Vice President is scheduled for September 9. The ruling NDA has nominated Maharashtra Governor C P Radhakrishnan for the post. The last date for withdrawal of nominations passed on Monday. The first ever visual of a Salwa Judum procession-comprising tribals from Villages annexed by Judum activists. (Express Archive)What was the Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh?Story continues below this adIn the first decade of the 2000s, more than 200 districts in several states were in the grip of the Maoist insurgency. Chhattisgarh was among the worst affected, and witnessed extreme violence: between 2005 and 2011, as many as 1,019 villagers, 726 security personnel, and 422 Maoists were killed in Bastar alone, according to official figures.In response to the security challenge posed by the Naxals, the government of Chhattisgarh sponsored a vigilante movement known as Salwa Judum (‘peace march’ in Gondi), and mobilised local villagers into armed groups of SPOs, also known as Koya Commandos.These groups largely comprised tribal youth of the particular areas in which they were active, some of whom were as young as 18 years old, and often had limited education.Read | Sudershan Reddy responds to Amit Shah attack on Salwa Judum ruling: ‘A little surprised mighty Home Minister raising this issue after 14 years’The SPOs were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. Unlike the Indian Police Act, 1861, under which the approval of a magistrate is required for the appointment of SPOs, the Chhattisgarh Act gave the superintendent of police wide discretionary powers.Story continues below this adThe SPOs were given firearms for self defence, and were deployed to assist as guides, translators, informants, and spotters. They were paid an honorarium of Rs 3,000 per month, and helped to increase manpower on the side of the state in areas where regular forces found it difficult to operate. Justice 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.And what was the case before the SC?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.The petitioners alleged that it was unconstitutional, violated fundamental rights, and had led to widespread human rights abuses. It blurred the line between civilians and combatants, left poorly trained youth exposed to violent retaliation, and displaced entire communities, they said.What was the argument of the state?Story continues below this adBoth the central government, which was led by the Congress at the time, and the state government led by Raman Singh of the BJP, defended the policy.The Union argued that “its role [was] limited to the approval of upper limit of the number of SPOs for each state for the purpose of reimbursement of the honorarium under the SRE (security-related expenditure) scheme”, and that the “appointment, training, deployment, role and responsibility” of the SPOs were determined by the state governments concerned, the Supreme Court’s order recorded.The State of Chhattisgarh filed detailed affidavits submitting that recruitment was on a voluntary basis. The applicants had to be at least 18 years of age, undergo character verification, and should have preferably studied up to the fifth standard. The state said that preference was given to those who had suffered at the hands of Maoists and wanted to resist them.The order noted the submission of the state that “[T]he victims of naxal violence and youth from naxal affected areas having knowledge of the local terrain, dialects, naxalites and their sympathizers and who voluntarily come forward and expressed their willingness are recruited as SPOs after character verification.”Story continues below this adThe affidavits stated that SPOs were trained in the use of weapons, as well as in law and human rights. They were equipped with firearms for self defence, and were taught to assist police and security forces by providing intelligence and guidance in unfamiliar terrain.The state claimed that SPOs had been effective in protecting relief camps and foiling Maoist attacks. “SPOs have been able to thwart more than a dozen Maoist attacks on relief camps and have also been instrumental in saving lives of regular troops,” it said, according to the judgment.The state also argued that the appointment of SPOs provided livelihoods in areas with limited employment opportunities. According to the government, SPOs were treated as part of the regular force for welfare purposes.And what did the court rule?The court examined whether the practice of arming and deploying SPOs was consistent with constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the fundamental right to equality and the right to life with dignity.Story continues below this adIt noted that the Chhattisgarh Police Act gave very wide discretion to the executive to appoint SPOs without clear conditions or safeguards. The court found that some of those who had been recruited and armed had not even studied up to Class 5.“It would be impossible for any reasonable person to accept that tribal youngsters, who may, or may not, have passed the fifth standard, would possess the necessary scholastic abilities to read, appreciate and understand the subjects being taught to them, and gain the appropriate skills to be engaged in counter-insurgency movements against the Maoists,” the court said.On the use of firearms, the court said that the youngsters “would simply not possess the analytical and cognitive skills to read and understand the complex socio-legal dimensions that inform the concept of self-defence”.The court held that expecting poorly trained and underpaid SPOs to perform the same functions as regular police officers was discriminatory and violated Article 14. It also held that exposing them to life-threatening risks without adequate training, protection, or long-term security violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.Story continues below this adOn the argument that SPOs were being provided livelihoods, the court observed that placing vulnerable youth in situations of extreme danger could not be treated as employment. “We simply cannot comprehend how involving ill equipped, barely literate youngsters in counter insurgency activities, wherein their lives are placed in danger could be conceived under the rubric of livelihood,” it said.The court said that the state was effectively using citizens as expendable instruments in counterinsurgency operations, which was “revelatory of disrespect for the lives of the tribal youth, and defiling of their human dignity”.The court ordered that the practice of appointing SPOs for counterinsurgency operations should be stopped. Salwa Judum was disbanded, and the court directed that only properly trained police or paramilitary forces should carry out operations against Maoists.