Retired Judges Criticize Amit Shah’s Remarks on Sudershan Reddy

Swift Summary:

• A group of 18 retired judges,including ex-Supreme Court Justices Kurien Joseph,Madan B Lokur,and J chelameswar,criticized Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s comments on opposition Vice-presidential candidate Justice (retd.) B Sudershan Reddy over the Salwa Judum verdict.
• Mr. Shah accused Justice (retd.) Reddy of “supporting” Maoism through his involvement in the 2011 supreme Court judgment that disbanded Salwa Judum. He claimed Left Wing Extremism could have ended by 2020 without this judgment.
• The retired judges stated that Mr. Shah’s remarks misinterpreted the judgment and do not support Naxalism or its ideology. They expressed concern that such statements from high-ranking politicians could intimidate judiciary independence.
• The statement called for maintaining civility in campaigns and refraining from name-calling out of respect for the Vice-President’s office.
• Justice (retd.) Reddy clarified that the verdict was delivered by a Supreme Court bench and said Mr. Shah may not have read it fully before commenting.
• Other signatories include three former High Court chief Justices: Govind Mathur, S Muralidhar, and Sanjib Bannerjee.

Indian Opinion Analysis:

The criticism raised by esteemed retired judges underscores a crucial issue regarding judicial independence in india’s democracy. If political leaders publicly misinterpret landmark judgments to fit campaign narratives, it risks undermining public confidence in legal institutions-a cornerstone of constitutional governance. In this context, their plea for dignified discourse reflects an essential reminder about safeguarding institutional respect while engaging in ideological debates during elections.

This situation also highlights ongoing tensions between legal interpretations of controversial measures like Salwa Judum-a state-backed anti-Maoist militia-and political narratives on counterinsurgency success. Such public disagreements may provoke deeper conversations about balancing civil rights with security imperatives while preserving judicial autonomy amid electoral politics.

Read more: The Hindu