Former AG Mukul Rohatgi endorses view of 56 judges in support of Amit Shah's Salwa Judum remark

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi has endorsed the stance of 56 retired judges who have supported Home Minister Amit Shah in the controversy over his remarks on the Salwa Judum verdict.

Rohatgi has said, "If any person enters a political arena, they are under public gaze, and their credentials are subject to debate. There is no gain in saying that the judgment of a judge rendered 20 years ago should not be criticised. Every judgment is open to criticism, including this one. The criticism is of the judgment, and the author of the judgment happens to be in a political arena; hence, obviously, people will talk about it. A politician should have thick skin and be able to face public criticism."

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on August 22, 2025, accused the India Bloc's Vice Presidential candidate, former Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy, of having "ideological support" for Naxalism. Shah's comments, made at an event in Kochi, referred to a landmark 2011 Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice Reddy that disbanded the controversial anti-Maoist militia, Salwa Judum.

Addressing the Manorama News Conclave, Shah claimed that if the Salwa Judum judgment had not been delivered, "Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020." He alleged that Justice Reddy, driven by a specific ideology, used the "pious platform" of the Supreme Court to pronounce a verdict that, in his view, aided the Left-wing extremist movement.

The controversy centers on the 2011 Supreme Court decision in the case of Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh. A bench comprising Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar delivered a scathing judgment, declaring the formation of Salwa Judum, a state-sponsored armed tribal group created to counter Maoist insurgents in Chhattisgarh, as illegal and unconstitutional. The court ruled that using tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) was a violation of constitutional principles. The judgment underscored that the state's responsibility to maintain law and order could not be outsourced to a vigilante force. Court not only ordered the immediate disbanding of Salwa Judum and the disarmament of the SPOs but also directed the government to cease all funding for the militia.

Beyond just disbanding the militia, the judgment also noted that the government's approach of an iron fist was blind to constitutional limitations. Court said that the state must address the "socio-economic circumstances, endemic inequalities, and a corrupt social and state order" that fuel the insurgency, rather than reducing the problem to a simple law-and-order issue.

Amit Shah's comments elicited immediate responses. Justice Reddy himself responded to the criticism by stating that he did not wish to engage in a public debate with the Home Minister, asserting that the judgment was that of the Supreme Court, not a personal opinion. He subtly suggested that Shah may not have read the entire verdict.

Apart from that, a group of former Supreme Court and high court judges, along with senior advocate Sanjay Hegde and academic Mohan Gopal, have issued a statement condemning Shah’s remarks. The signatories termed Shah’s interpretation of the 2011 ruling as “unfortunate,” stressing that the judgment nowhere endorsed Naxalism “either expressly or by compelling implication.” They noted that while political campaigns for the office of Vice President may be ideological, they must be conducted with dignity and without resorting to personal attacks.

The statement cautioned that prejudicial misinterpretation of a Supreme Court ruling by a senior political functionary could have a “chilling effect” on the judiciary and undermine its independence. Urging restraint, the former judges said that respect for the office of the Vice President demands refraining from name-calling. Among the signatories were former Supreme Court judges A.K. Patnaik, Madan Lokur, J. Chelameswar, Abhay Oka, Kurien Joseph, Gopala Gowda and Vikramjit Sen, several former chief justices and judges of high courts, along with Prof. Mohan Gopal and senior advocate Sanjay Hegde.

On July 5, 2011, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy disbanded the Salwa Judum movement, a tribal led youth initiative and then recruited by the state, to counter Maoist insurgents in Bastar. In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court not only outlawed the recruitments of the youth in the Special Public Officers (SPO) scheme, but also ordered the recall of all firearms, the withdrawal of State funding, and the prosecution of Salwa Judum.