A group of retired judges has described Union Minister Amit Shah’s criticism of the Opposition INDIA bloc’s vice presidential candidate B Sudershan Reddy over the 2011 Salwa Judum judgement as “unfortunate”, The Wire reported on Monday.

Shah on Friday accused Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, of “aiding” Maoists by delivering the Salwa Judum ruling that outlawed Chhattisgarh’s use of armed vigilantes against the Maoist insurgency.

“If that judgement had not been passed, Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020,” Shah had claimed at the Manorama News Conclave.

The Union home minister repeated the claim on Monday during an interview to ANI.

On Sunday, 18 former judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts – including Justices AK Patnaik, Abhay Oka, Gopala Gowda, Vikramjit Sen, Kurien Joseph, Madan B Lokur and J Chelameswar – issued a joint statement criticising Shah’s remarks.

The retired judges said Shah’s claim was a misrepresentation of the 2011 ruling, which “nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication…Naxalism or its ideology”.

“Prejudicial misinterpretation of a judgement of the Supreme Court by a high political functionary is likely to have a chilling effect on the judges of the Supreme Court,” the statement said.

The judges also urged that “out of respect for the office of the vice president of India, it would be wise to refrain from name calling”.

They added: “While the campaign for the office of the vice president of India may well be ideological, it can be conducted civilly and with dignity. Criticising the so-called ideology of either candidate should be eschewed.”

In 2005, the Salwa Judum, a state-supported civil vigilante campaign, was launched with an aim of targeting villages seen as harbouring Maoists. Armed vigilantes allegedly torched homes and forced villagers to flee to government-run camps.

Translated as “purification hunt” in Gondi language, Salwa Judum was presented by the Chhattisgarh government as a spontaneous movement by the region’s tribal community against the Maoists. However, human rights activists accused the Salwa Judum of coercing people into leaving their villages and supporting the group. With the tribal community split between both sides, there were several deaths for months.

In 2011, Reddy was part of the bench that struck down the practice of Salwa Judum, saying that the state actions amounted to “an abdication of constitutional responsibilities” and that it represents “an extreme form of transgression of constitutional boundaries”.

The court said that Salwa Judum was unconstitutional and ordered the group to be disbanded.

Reddy’s response

On Saturday, Reddy said that he did not wish to enter into a direct verbal exchange with Shah on the matter.

He said that the Salwa Judum verdict was not his alone but that of the Supreme Court bench.

“I do not wish to join an issue directly with the [Union home minister], whose constitutional duty and obligation is to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen, irrespective of ideological differences,” Reddy said.

He added that had Shah read the judgement himself, “perhaps he would not have made that comment”.