Out: Retired Judges Condemn Amit Shah’s Remarks on Sudershan Reddy Judgment2025

The recent remarks by Home Minister Amit Shah on retired Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy have sparked a heated debate, with 18 former judges calling his interpretation “unfortunate” and prejudicial. This article examines the controversy, its implications for judicial independence, and the broader political context.

A powerful coalition of 18 retired Supreme Court and High Court judges has emerged to challenge Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s controversial interpretation of a landmark 2011 judgment.

The unprecedented collective response represents one of the strongest defenses of judicial independence in recent memory, transforming what began as campaign rhetoric into a pivotal moment for India’s constitutional framework.

The Spark That Ignited a Constitutional Debate

The controversy erupted during a politically charged campaign season when Amit Shah, India’s Home Minister, made explosive allegations against retired Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy.

Speaking at a rally in early 2025, Shah accused Justice Reddy of “supporting Maoism” through his authorship of the Salwa Judum judgment delivered in 2011. The Home Minister went further, claiming that had the Supreme Court not struck down the Salwa Judum program, India’s battle against Left Wing Extremism would have concluded by 2020.

These remarks came as Justice Reddy emerged as a Vice-Presidential candidate backed by opposition parties, making the timing particularly significant.

What Shah likely intended as a political attack quickly transformed into something far more consequential—a direct challenge to how judicial verdicts should be characterized in public discourse.

Within days of Shah’s statements, the legal community responded with remarkable unity.

Eighteen retired judges, representing decades of judicial experience and constitutional wisdom, issued a joint statement that minced no words in its criticism.

They described the Home Minister’s characterization as “unfortunate” and warned of its potential to create a “chilling effect” on the independence of sitting judges.

Understanding the Historic Salwa Judum Case

To fully grasp why the judges responded so forcefully, one must understand the complexity and significance of the Salwa Judum case decided by the Supreme Court on July 5, 2011.

The case, formally titled Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, addressed one of independent India’s most controversial counter-insurgency programs.

Salwa Judum, which translates to “Peace Hunt” in Gondi, was initiated by the Chhattisgarh government in 2005 as a response to growing Maoist insurgency in the state’s tribal heartland.

The program recruited and armed local tribal youth, designating them as Special Police Officers (SPOs) despite minimal training. These SPOs, many barely out of their teens, were thrust into the deadly conflict between security forces and Maoist guerrillas.

The Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment, authored primarily by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, declared several aspects of the Salwa Judum program unconstitutional. The Court found that:

Arming untrained civilians violated constitutional guarantees – The state cannot outsource its security responsibilities to inadequately trained individuals, putting both the civilians and the public at risk.
Fundamental rights of tribals were compromised – The program displaced thousands from their villages, violating their right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Accountability mechanisms were absent – SPOs operated without proper legal framework, training, or oversight, leading to documented human rights violations.
The state’s monopoly on legitimate force was diluted – By arming civilians without proper institutional structures, the government undermined the basic principle that only the state can exercise lawful violence.

The judgment was celebrated by human rights organizations globally as a triumph of constitutional values over expedient but problematic security measures.

However, it also drew criticism from security establishment circles who argued it hampered anti-Maoist operations at a critical juncture.

The Distinguished Panel of Judicial Voices

The significance of the retired judges’ statement cannot be understated, given the stature and credibility of its signatories. The 18 judges represent a combined judicial experience spanning several centuries and include some of the most respected names in Indian jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Justices who signed the statement:

Justice Madan B. Lokur – Known for his progressive judgments on environmental protection and human rights, Justice Lokur served on the Supreme Court from 2012 to 2018 and has been a vocal advocate for judicial reforms.
Justice Kurien Joseph – A jurist celebrated for his independent stance on constitutional matters, Justice Joseph was part of the historic five-judge Constitution Bench and served until 2018.
Justice J. Chelameswar – Perhaps the most outspoken critic of administrative irregularities within the judiciary itself, Justice Chelameswar made history by holding a press conference in January 2018 questioning the Chief Justice’s allocation of cases.
Justice A.K. Patnaik – A former Supreme Court judge known for his expertise in constitutional law and administrative matters, who retired in 2014.
Justice Abhay Oka – Currently serving as a Supreme Court judge (as of the document’s context), Justice Oka has built a reputation for meticulous legal reasoning.
Justice Gopala Gowda – Served on the Supreme Court from 2011 to 2016, delivering several landmark judgments on civil rights.
Justice Vikramjit Sen – A judge known for his progressive interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly in matters of personal liberty.

Former Chief Justices of High Courts:

Three distinguished former Chief Justices added their weight to the statement:

Justice Govind Mathur – Former Chief Justice of multiple High Courts with extensive experience in constitutional litigation.
Justice S. Muralidhar – Currently Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice Muralidhar has been a consistent voice for judicial independence and previously served in the Delhi High Court, where he delivered several bold judgments on sensitive matters.
Justice Sanjib Banerjee – Former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, known for his forthright judicial opinions and commitment to constitutional principles.

This coalition represents not just individual voices but the collective conscience of the Indian judiciary across generations and geographical jurisdictions.

Dissecting the Judges’ Powerful Response

The retired judges’ statement, released in mid-2025, carried the weight of careful legal analysis combined with unmistakable concern for institutional integrity. Their response addressed multiple dimensions of why Shah’s remarks crossed constitutional boundaries.

The Core Legal Objection

The judges were unequivocal in their primary criticism: “The statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, publicly misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Salwa Judum case, is unfortunate. The judgment nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology.”

This carefully worded rebuke accomplishes several objectives. By stating the judgment supports Maoism “neither expressly nor by compelling implication,” the judges addressed both direct and indirect interpretations. They effectively closed any argumentative loophole that might suggest the judgment could be read sympathetically to Maoist ideology.

The Institutional Concern

Beyond defending the specific judgment, the statement highlighted broader institutional dangers. The judges warned that “political misinterpretation of judicial verdicts could shake public confidence in the judiciary and affect the independence of sitting judges.”

This warning reflects a sophisticated understanding of how judicial independence operates in practice. Judges don’t just need formal constitutional protection—they need the confidence that their reasoned decisions will be represented fairly in public discourse. When senior political leaders deliberately mischaracterize judgments, it creates an environment where judges might hesitate before delivering unpopular but constitutionally sound verdicts.

The Democratic Principle at Stake

The retired judges also emphasized that democratic debate, however vigorous, must maintain certain standards. They stressed that “campaigns, even if ideological, must be conducted with dignity” and that attributing improper motives to judicial decisions “reduces the quality of democratic debate.”

This represents a crucial point about the relationship between robust political discourse and institutional respect. Democracy thrives on disagreement, but when disagreement morphs into deliberate distortion of judicial pronouncements, it threatens the foundation of constitutional governance.

Why These Remarks Went Dangerously “Out” of Bounds

The word “out” has become symbolic in this controversy—Shah’s remarks were out of line, out of constitutional norms, and threatened to push judicial independence out of its protected space. Several factors explain why these comments proved so problematic.

Threatening the Separation of Powers

India’s Constitution establishes a clear separation between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each branch respects the others’ domain, and this mutual restraint enables democratic functioning. When a senior cabinet minister publicly mischaracterizes a judicial verdict, it represents executive overreach into judicial territory.

The retired judges understood this dynamic precisely. By allowing such characterizations to go unchallenged, they would have set a precedent where political convenience could reframe judicial reasoning, effectively subordinating judicial independence to political interpretation.

Creating a Chilling Effect on Current Judges

Perhaps the most insidious danger lies in how such political attacks might influence sitting judges. If judges know that difficult but constitutionally required decisions will be publicly misrepresented as supporting extremism or anti-national activities, they might—consciously or unconsciously—pull back from bold interpretations.

This chilling effect doesn’t require explicit threats. The mere knowledge that politically inconvenient judgments will be distorted in the public sphere can subtly influence judicial decision-making, pushing judges toward safer, less controversial positions even when constitutional principles demand otherwise.

Eroding Public Faith in Institutions

India’s democracy depends on public faith in its institutions. When the Home Minister characterizes a Supreme Court judgment as supporting Maoism—a serious charge given Maoists’ designation as terrorists—it plants seeds of doubt about judicial neutrality.

Citizens who respect political authority might reasonably conclude that if the Home Minister says a judgment supported terrorism, perhaps the judiciary cannot be trusted. This erosion of institutional credibility serves no one’s long-term interests, regardless of short-term political gains.

The Broader Political Context and Calculations

Shah’s remarks didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They were delivered during a Vice-Presidential campaign where Justice B. Sudershan Reddy was the opposition candidate. Understanding this context helps explain both the motivation and the backlash.

Electoral Strategy Gone Wrong

From a purely tactical perspective, Shah likely aimed to accomplish several objectives:

Paint the opposition candidate as soft on terrorism – By linking Justice Reddy to Maoism through his judgment, Shah hoped to make him unpalatable to security-conscious voters.
Rally the base – Strong rhetoric against perceived judicial activism plays well with sections of the electorate frustrated by court interventions in government policy.
Shift debate from credentials to ideology – Rather than debating Justice Reddy’s distinguished judicial career, Shah attempted to make ideology the central issue.

However, the strategy backfired spectacularly. Instead of damaging Justice Reddy’s standing, Shah’s remarks generated sympathy for him and triggered a institutional defense that drew far more attention than the original campaign issue.

Revealing Governmental Attitudes Toward Dissent

More significant than the immediate political impact, Shah’s comments revealed concerning attitudes about judicial decisions that constrain executive action. The underlying message was clear: judges who rule against government programs, particularly in sensitive areas like security, may face public character assassination.

This revelation troubled many observers beyond the legal community. If even Supreme Court justices aren’t immune from such attacks when delivering constitutionally mandated judgments, what message does that send about the space for legitimate dissent in India’s democracy?

Historical Precedents and the Uniqueness of This Moment

While political criticism of judicial decisions isn’t new, the scale and nature of this controversy represents something distinctive in India’s constitutional history.

Previous Tensions Between Judiciary and Executive

Indian democracy has witnessed several periods of judiciary-executive tension:

The Emergency (1975-1977) – When the judiciary’s independence was severely compromised, with the infamous ADM Jabalpur case representing a low point.
The Judges’ Case trilogy (1981-1998) – A series of judgments that progressively expanded judicial control over judicial appointments, creating lasting friction with the executive.
Recent debates over judicial appointments – Ongoing tensions regarding the Collegium system and the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

However, these previous conflicts primarily concerned institutional prerogatives—who controls judicial appointments, what powers courts should exercise, etc. The current controversy is different because it attacks the integrity and interpretation of a specific judgment rather than questioning institutional boundaries.

The Unprecedented Collective Response

What makes the retired judges’ statement historically significant is its collective nature. Individual judges have previously defended judicial independence through speeches, articles, or interviews. But eighteen retired judges, including three former Chief Justices of High Courts, issuing a joint statement represents an extraordinary mobilization of judicial opinion.

This collective action signals that the legal community views Shah’s remarks not as normal political rhetoric but as crossing a fundamental line that threatens judicial independence itself.

The Salwa Judum Judgment’s Actual Reasoning

To understand why the judges responded so strongly, it’s essential to recognize what the Salwa Judum judgment actually said versus how Shah characterized it.

What the Judgment Actually Held

The Supreme Court’s 2011 verdict carefully balanced security concerns with constitutional rights. Justice Reddy and his colleagues acknowledged the genuine challenge of Maoist insurgency but held that constitutional means couldn’t be abandoned in addressing security threats.

Key holdings included:

SPO appointments declared illegal – The Court found that appointing and arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers without proper training, accountability, or legal framework violated constitutional principles.
Displacement was unconstitutional – Forcing tribals to relocate to camps violated their fundamental rights, particularly when the state failed to provide adequate security or livelihood alternatives.
State obligations reaffirmed – The judgment emphasized that the state must protect all citizens, including those in Maoist-affected areas, but must do so through constitutional means.
Future roadmap provided – Rather than leaving a vacuum, the Court suggested constitutional alternatives for addressing security concerns.

What the Judgment Never Said

Crucially, the judgment nowhere:

Expressed sympathy for Maoist ideology
Questioned the government’s right to combat insurgency
Suggested that Maoists’ grievances justified violence
Prevented the state from deploying trained police or paramilitary forces

The judgment simply insisted that counter-insurgency measures must conform to constitutional standards—a position difficult to characterize as supporting terrorism without fundamentally misrepresenting the verdict.

Impact on Future Judicial Decision-Making

The controversy raises important questions about how judges might approach sensitive cases going forward.

Will Judges Self-Censor?

The fear expressed by the retired judges is that sitting judges, witnessing how the Salwa Judum judgment was politically weaponized fourteen years later, might hesitate before delivering bold rulings in sensitive areas. This self-censorship need not be conscious—the mere awareness of potential political backlash can influence judicial reasoning at subconscious levels.

Areas particularly vulnerable to such chilling effects include:

National security cases – Where judicial scrutiny of executive action might be characterized as weakness toward terrorism
Communal violence litigation – Where judgments might be framed through partisan political lenses
Economic policy challenges – Where judicial interventions might be portrayed as anti-development
Civil liberties cases – Where protecting rights might be characterized as obstructing governance

Strengthening Judicial Resolve

Conversely, the powerful response from retired judges might actually strengthen sitting judges’ resolve. Knowing that the broader judicial community will defend reasoned judgments against political distortion could embolden judges to deliver constitutionally required verdicts without fear of isolated attacks.

The statement essentially tells sitting judges: “We have your back. Deliver judgments based on constitutional principles, and the judicial community will defend your reasoning against political misrepresentation.”

The Role of Media and Public Discourse

The controversy also highlights the media’s crucial role in shaping how judicial decisions are understood publicly.

Responsible Reporting vs. Sensationalism

Media coverage of the Salwa Judum judgment in 2011 was generally balanced, explaining both the human rights concerns that animated the decision and the security establishment’s criticism. However, in the current politically polarized environment, nuanced coverage often gives way to partisan narratives.

When a senior minister makes explosive claims about a judgment, media faces a choice: report the claim as newsworthy controversy, or contextualize it with actual judicial reasoning. The quality of democratic discourse depends heavily on this choice.

Public Understanding of Judicial Function

Part of what enables political mischaracterization of judgments is public misunderstanding of judicial function. Many citizens don’t recognize that judges deciding cases based on constitutional principles aren’t expressing policy preferences but fulfilling their constitutional obligation.

Educating the public about this distinction—between policy disagreement (legitimate) and character assassination (illegitimate)—represents an ongoing challenge for democratic health.

International Perspectives on Judicial Independence

India’s controversy occurs against a global backdrop of democratic backsliding and judicial independence under threat.

Global Patterns of Judicial Pressure

Around the world, populist governments have increasingly attacked judicial independence when courts constrain executive power:

Poland and Hungary – Where judicial reforms have effectively subordinated courts to executive control
Turkey – Where extensive purges followed the 2016 coup attempt
Venezuela – Where the Supreme Court has become effectively an arm of the executive
The Philippines – Where judicial independence faced pressure during the previous administration

India has generally resisted these trends, maintaining a largely independent judiciary despite occasional tensions. The retired judges’ statement represents a defense against the kind of erosion seen elsewhere.

International Rule of Law Standards

International organizations monitoring rule of law consistently emphasize judicial independence as foundational. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary specifically notes that “it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”

This includes not just formal independence but respecting judicial decisions and refraining from characterizations that undermine public confidence in courts. By this standard, Shah’s remarks violated international norms for how executive officials should discuss judicial decisions.

Looking Forward: Implications and Lessons

As the immediate controversy fades, several longer-term implications emerge.

Setting Boundaries for Political Discourse

The retired judges’ response establishes a clear marker: there are boundaries to how political leaders can characterize judicial decisions. Disagreeing with judgments is legitimate; deliberately misrepresenting their reasoning is not. This distinction matters for maintaining democratic norms.

Strengthening Judicial Solidarity

The collective response demonstrates that the judicial community will mobilize to defend its institutional integrity. This solidarity sends important messages both to sitting judges (you won’t stand alone) and to political actors (attacks on judicial reasoning will face organized pushback).

The Opposition’s Political Opportunity

For opposition parties, the controversy provides ammunition for broader arguments about the current government’s approach to institutions. They can point to this episode as evidence of insufficient respect for constitutional boundaries, potentially resonating with voters concerned about democratic backsliding.

Government’s Credibility Challenge

The Home Ministry notably did not defend or clarify Shah’s remarks following the judges’ statement. This silence might reflect recognition that the comments were indefensible, but it leaves the original characterization uncorrected, creating ongoing ambiguity about the government’s stance.

The Constitutional Principle at the Heart of the Controversy

Ultimately, this controversy revolves around a foundational constitutional principle: judicial review of executive action must be possible without judges facing character assassination for doing their constitutional duty.

Why Judicial Review Matters

In any democracy, the majority can enact its will through elected representatives. But constitutional democracy includes a counter-majoritarian element—certain principles cannot be violated even by majorities. Judicial review enforces these constitutional constraints.

If judges face political attacks for enforcing constitutional boundaries, judicial review becomes practically impossible. Judges will gravitate toward politically safe decisions rather than constitutionally required ones.

The Special Responsibility of Government Officials

While any citizen can criticize judicial decisions, government officials bear special responsibilities. They take oaths to uphold the Constitution, which includes respecting the judiciary’s role. When cabinet ministers publicly mischaracterize judgments, it violates this constitutional obligation and sets a dangerous precedent.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Why did 18 retired judges respond to Amit Shah’s remarks about Justice Sudershan Reddy?

The retired judges issued their collective statement because they viewed Shah’s characterization of the 2011 Salwa Judum judgment as a fundamental misrepresentation that threatened judicial independence.

They were concerned that allowing such distortions to stand unchallenged would create a chilling effect on sitting judges and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Their response emphasized that the judgment never supported Maoism or its ideology, either explicitly or implicitly, and that political leaders have a responsibility to characterize judicial decisions accurately.

Q2. What exactly did the Supreme Court decide in the 2011 Salwa Judum case?

The Supreme Court’s July 5, 2011 judgment in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh declared unconstitutional the practice of arming and deploying untrained tribal youth as Special Police Officers in counter-insurgency operations.

The Court found that this program violated fundamental rights by: putting inadequately trained civilians in harm’s way, enabling human rights violations due to lack of accountability, forcibly displacing tribal populations from their villages, and diluting the state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force.

The judgment emphasized that while the government has every right to combat Maoist insurgency, it must do so through constitutional means with properly trained and accountable security forces.

Q3. Who is Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and why was he targeted?

Justice B. Sudershan Reddy is a distinguished retired Supreme Court judge who served on the bench from 2004 to 2011.

He was one of the principal authors of the Salwa Judum judgment. Justice Reddy emerged as the opposition coalition’s candidate for Vice-President in 2025, which prompted Amit Shah’s campaign remarks.

Shah attempted to portray Justice Reddy as sympathetic to Maoism through his authorship of the judgment, presumably to damage his Vice-Presidential candidacy.

However, this strategy backfired when the retired judges’ collective response shifted the narrative from Justice Reddy’s alleged sympathies to questions about the government’s respect for judicial independence.

Q4. What does “prejudicial misinterpretation” mean in this context?

“Prejudicial misinterpretation” refers to deliberately or carelessly distorting the meaning of a judicial verdict for political advantage, in a way that could harm both the judiciary as an institution and individual judges.

In this case, the retired judges used this phrase to characterize Shah’s suggestion that the Salwa Judum judgment supported Maoism.

Such misinterpretation is “prejudicial” because it prejudges the judiciary’s motives (suggesting sympathy for terrorism) rather than engaging with the actual constitutional reasoning.

This type of distortion can prejudice public opinion against the judiciary and create prejudicial conditions for sitting judges who might face similar attacks for delivering constitutionally sound but politically inconvenient judgments.

Q5. How does this controversy affect the independence of sitting judges?

The controversy creates what legal scholars call a “chilling effect” on judicial independence.

When judges witness how a fourteen-year-old judgment can be politically weaponized and its author accused of supporting terrorism, they might consciously or unconsciously pull back from delivering bold but constitutionally required judgments in sensitive areas.

This self-censorship doesn’t require explicit threats—the mere knowledge that difficult decisions might be publicly misrepresented years later can influence judicial reasoning.

The retired judges’ statement attempted to counter this chilling effect by demonstrating that the broader judicial community will defend reasoned judgments against political distortion, thereby encouraging sitting judges to maintain their independence.

Q6. What are the political implications of this controversy for the Vice-Presidential election?

The political implications proved complex and largely counterproductive for the Home Minister’s apparent objectives.

Rather than successfully painting Justice Reddy as soft on terrorism, Shah’s remarks generated significant sympathy for him and shifted the narrative to questions about the government’s respect for judicial independence.

The unprecedented response from 18 retired judges gave the opposition parties powerful ammunition to argue that the government crosses constitutional boundaries when dealing with dissenting voices.

Instead of making ideology the central campaign issue, the controversy highlighted institutional concerns about democratic backsliding.

However, the actual electoral impact would depend on how voters weigh institutional concerns against other political considerations.

Q7. Has the government responded to or defended Amit Shah’s remarks?

Notably, neither the Home Ministry nor any senior government official publicly defended or clarified Shah’s characterization of the Salwa Judum judgment following the retired judges’ statement.

This silence is itself significant—it might reflect recognition within government that the remarks were constitutionally indefensible, but it also leaves the original distortion uncorrected in the public sphere.

The absence of any government response creates ongoing ambiguity about whether the remarks represented Shah’s personal view or reflected broader governmental attitudes toward judicial decisions that constrain executive action.

This lack of clarification has allowed the controversy to continue influencing public discourse about the relationship between the judiciary and the political executive.

Q8. What are the long-term consequences for India’s democratic institutions?

The long-term consequences depend largely on how the controversy is resolved and whether similar incidents recur.

Potential negative consequences include: erosion of judicial independence if judges begin self-censoring for fear of political attacks; declining public confidence in the judiciary if political distortions of judgments become normalized; and weakening of the separation of powers if the executive feels emboldened to characterize judicial decisions without regard for accuracy.

However, potential positive consequences include: strengthened judicial solidarity and willingness to defend institutional independence; clearer boundaries established for how political leaders can discuss judicial decisions; and increased public awareness of the importance of judicial independence for constitutional democracy.

The retired judges’ forceful response suggests the judicial community recognizes the stakes and will not passively accept erosion of constitutional norms.

Conclusion: Defending the Constitutional Order

The collective response from 18 retired judges to Amit Shah’s remarks represents far more than defense of a colleague or a particular judgment.

It constitutes a defense of the constitutional principle that judicial decisions must be characterized honestly in public discourse, even when—especially when—those decisions constrain political power.

The word “out” captures multiple dimensions of this controversy. Shah’s remarks went out of constitutional bounds by deliberately misrepresenting judicial reasoning.

They threatened to push judicial independence out of its protected constitutional space. And they violated the norms that keep political discourse within acceptable boundaries.

The retired judges’ response serves as a powerful reminder that constitutional democracy requires more than formal structures.

It demands that political leaders respect institutional boundaries, that judicial decisions be represented fairly in public debate, and that short-term political advantage not trump long-term constitutional health.

As India navigates an increasingly polarized political environment, the lessons from this controversy become ever more relevant.

Vigorous democratic debate about policy is not just acceptable but essential. But that debate must occur within constitutional boundaries that respect the judiciary’s role, accurately represent judicial reasoning, and refrain from character assassination of judges fulfilling their constitutional duties.

The 18 retired judges have drawn a line. Whether that line holds will shape India’s constitutional trajectory in the years ahead.

Stay Informed on Constitutional Developments

For comprehensive coverage of judicial independence, political accountability, and their impact on Indian democracy, stay connected with NuePlanet.com.

Subscribe to our newsletter for in-depth analyses that cut through partisan rhetoric to examine the constitutional principles at stake in contemporary controversies.