Judicial Firestorm: 18 Retired Judges Slam Amit Shah's 'Prejudicial Misinterpretation' of Salwa Judum Verdict

The Indian political landscape has been jolted by a rare and robust intervention from the judiciary, as a collective of eighteen distinguished retired judges publicly denounced Union Home Minister Amit Shah's recent comments. Their sharp criticism targets Shah's remarks concerning the Supreme Court's landmark 2011 Salwa Judum judgment, which they unequivocally label as a "prejudicial misinterpretation" designed to undermine the very foundations of judicial credibility.

The controversy ignited when Home Minister Shah, during a public address, suggested that the Opposition's Vice-Presidential candidate, Margaret Alva, had been associated with a judgment perceived by him as being "against security forces." This thinly veiled reference was directed at the Salwa Judum verdict, implying a link between Alva and a ruling he characterized as detrimental to India's security apparatus.

However, the united front of retired judges, including former high court chief justices and Supreme Court judges, swiftly moved to set the record straight.

They clarified that the 2011 Supreme Court judgment, delivered unanimously by a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar, did not in any way act "against security forces." Instead, the historic ruling ordered the immediate disbanding of Salwa Judum, a state-sponsored civilian vigilante force operating in Chhattisgarh, on grounds of severe human rights violations and its unconstitutional nature.

The judges emphasized that the verdict was a principled stand against an unlawful armed militia, which was exploiting and terrorizing tribal populations, rather than a critique of legitimate state security operations.

They meticulously pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision underscored the fundamental duty of the state to protect its citizens and uphold the rule of law, unequivocally stating that the state could not outsource its security responsibilities to untrained, private armed groups.

In their strongly worded statement, the retired judicial luminaries expressed deep concern over Shah's narrative, viewing it as a deliberate attempt to malign a crucial judicial pronouncement.

They highlighted that such politically motivated interpretations from high-ranking public officials erode public trust in independent institutions and threaten the delicate balance of power enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The esteemed judges urged all public figures, especially those holding significant governmental positions, to exercise utmost responsibility and accuracy when commenting on judicial matters.

They reiterated the imperative of respecting the integrity and autonomy of the judiciary, cautioning against any actions that could be perceived as an effort to diminish its stature or mislead the public about its constitutional role. This collective rebuke serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary's vigilance in safeguarding its independence and the principles of justice.