On 26th August, a group of retired judges, bristling at the earlier defence of former Justice B Sudershan Reddy by a group of judges and activists, said plainly that judicial independence was not under threat from Amit Shah’s remarks. Justice Reddy is the Vice President candidate of the Opposition parties. In the latest letter, the former judges reminded their colleagues that once a judge enters the electoral arena, he is fair game for criticism. This counter, to the earlier letter, lays bare the larger question that is, why do milords want to be above criticism in a democracy?
What Amit Shah said and why
On 22nd August, the Union Home Minister was speaking at a conclave organised by Malayalam news outlet Manorama in Kochi where he went straight for the jugular. He accused the Congress party of succumbing to Leftist pressure by fielding Justice Reddy as its Vice President candidate. HM Shah tied this decision to Reddy’s past as the judge who, along with Justice SS Nijjar, disbanded Salwa Judum, the anti-Maoist civilian force that had been deployed in Chhattisgarh.
In HM Shah’s words, “The opposition (Congress) vice presidential candidate Sudarshan Reddy is the same person who gave the Salwa Judum judgment in support of leftist extremism and Naxalism. If this had not been done, extremism would have been eradicated by 2020.” He reminded the people of Kerala that the state itself had borne the sting of Naxalism and extremism. He argued that Congress had revealed its true ideological tilt by elevating such a figure under pressure from its Leftist allies.
HM Shah’s attack was not an abstract rant against the judiciary. It was a pointed political critique of a rival candidate’s track record which is entirely natural in an electoral democracy.
The judgment in question
To understand why a group of judges and activists were stung so badly by the criticism, it is essential to revisit the Salwa Judum verdict of 2011. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Reddy and Nijjar struck down the Chhattisgarh government’s policy of arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to fight Maoists. Nandini Sundar and other Leftists had filed a petition against the decision of the state government. The Court acted on the petition and ordered the government to disband the force, recall all firearms, and protect the young men from Maoist reprisals.
The judgment also ordered the state to investigate all allegations of human rights violations and criminal acts committed by Salwa Judum members or those known as Koya Commandos. The bench made it clear that no group could be allowed to take the law into its own hands or act outside the Constitution.
“The effectiveness of the force cannot be the sole criterion to judge whether it is constitutionally permissible,” the bench observed. It added that even if SPOs were somewhat effective in fighting Maoists, the “dubious gains” came at the cost of massive constitutional violations and damage to social order.
The judgment came as a severe blow to the state government and the Centre as Salwa Judum, despite whatever flaws were claimed, had been one of the few ways of countering Maoists in their stronghold. The apex court’s intervention tied the hands and left security forces exposed. Amit Shah’s argument is straightforward. If the judiciary had not stepped in, the war against Naxalism might have been concluded by 2020.
The first reaction – ‘eminent’ judges rise to defend
Barely two days after Amit Shah’s statement, on 24th August, a group of retired judges and activists issued a letter attacking Shah. They accused him of “publicly misinterpreting” the judgment and insisted that the verdict never endorsed Naxalism. They lectured that campaigns for high office should be conducted with dignity and without questioning ideology.
The signatories included former Supreme Court judges like Madan Lokur, J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph, Abhay Oka, and AK Patnaik, along with former high court judges and activists like Sanjay Hegde and Mohan Gopal. Their tone was pompous: how dare a political functionary interpret a judgment? They warned that Shah’s words could have a “chilling effect” on the independence of the judiciary. In other words, milords demanded immunity from critique, even when one of their own has entered the rough and tumble of electoral politics.
The counter reaction – judges who see through the act
However, the pushback came quickly. Another group of retired judges, clearly unimpressed by this theatrical self-righteousness, issued their own statement. They called out the pattern of certain retired judges cloaking partisanship under the garb of judicial independence. They reminded everyone that once Justice Reddy chose to contest the Vice-President’s election, he stepped into politics and must defend his record like any other candidate.
This counter-statement is crucial as it demolished the idea that HM Shah’s criticism amounted to an assault on judicial independence. They argued that independence of the judiciary is not threatened by critique. What damages the judiciary is when retired judges repeatedly issue partisan political statements, giving the impression that the institution itself is aligned with one side of the political spectrum.
In one sharp line, they noted that the larger body of judges ends up painted as a partisan coterie because of the fault of a few. They warned that it is neither healthy for the judiciary nor for democracy.
Criticism of judges is not contempt of democracy
This is where the real issue lies. Retired or sitting judges are not gods. They are not prophets. They are human beings who delivered judgments that affected millions of lives. Those judgments, especially when they reshape national security policy, will inevitably invite criticism. That is the essence of democracy.
However, in India, milords seem to nurse a belief that they are somehow untouchable. They, for some reason, believe that criticism of their rulings is tantamount to an attack on the Constitution itself. Nothing could be more anti-democratic. If politicians, bureaucrats, generals, and media are subjected to public scrutiny, why should judges, especially those entering politics, expect exemption?
Free speech does not end at the courtroom doors. In fact, democracy demands that judgments that impact the security of citizens must be openly criticised. HM Shah’s statement may have been politically charged, however, it was legitimate commentary on how a past judicial decision shaped the trajectory of the Maoist insurgency.
To brand this as “misinterpretation” or “chilling” is to demand a monopoly over interpretation, as if only the judiciary has the right to explain its own words. The hypocrisy becomes glaring when retired judges themselves issue political manifestos under the guise of defending judicial independence. It is not right to sign letters that align perfectly with one political bloc on one hand but complain that a politician’s criticism is partisan on the other. That is having it both ways, and the public can see through it.
Democracy means accountability for all
This controversy is not just about HM Amit Shah versus Justice Reddy. It is about the role of the judiciary in a democracy. Once judges step into politics, they must accept that their record will be examined. Their judgments, especially those that changed the course of national security policies, will be scrutinised and their ideological leanings will be exposed in public. This is not an attack on the independence of the judiciary but the price of accountability.
The judiciary deserves respect but only if it stays above politics. When its retired members behave like political actors, they cannot demand immunity from criticism. If democracy means anything, it means that no institution or individual is beyond question.
So, to the milords who cry foul at every critique, here is a simple reminder. You are not gods, you are not above questioning, and this is not how a democracy works.