Paper: GS – II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Judiciary, Issue: Salwa Judum judgment.
Context:
The Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, popularly known as the Salwa Judum case, was a landmark ruling concerning human rights and the state’s handling of the Maoist insurgency.
- The case assessed whether Chhattisgarh government’s policy of arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) under the vigilante group Salwa Judum was constitutional.
- The Court found that this practice violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity), and ordered the disbanding of Salwa Judum.
- The ruling has remained a major legal precedent in balancing state security needs with individual rights, and continues to be debated in the political sphere.
Key Takeaways:
Background of the Salwa Judum Movement:
- Salwa Judum means peace march in the Gondi tribal language.
- Launched in 2005, backed by the Chhattisgarh government, it mobilised local tribal youth into armed groups to fight Naxals (Maoists).
- These youth, called Special Police Officers (SPOs) or Koya Commandos, were recruited under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007.
- They were often as young as 18, many barely educated, and given firearms, a ₹3,000 stipend, and deployed in dangerous counterinsurgency work.
Petition Before the Supreme Court:
- Filed in 2007 by sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, and ex-IAS officer EAS Sarma.
- Allegations: Practice was unconstitutional, violated fundamental rights.
- It blurred the line between civilians and combatants, exposing tribal youth and villagers to violent retaliation.
- Resulted in displacement and human rights abuses.
- The concern was that impoverished and inexperienced tribals were being used as “expendable instruments” in a brutal conflict.
Background and Legal Challenges of the Salwa Judum Movement:
Conclusion:
The Salwa Judum judgment (2011) remains a cornerstone in India’s constitutional jurisprudence on the balance between national security and fundamental rights. While the state sought expedient solutions to the Maoist insurgency, the Supreme Court held firmly that civilians cannot be armed and used as proxies in dangerous counterinsurgency operations. In doing so, it reaffirmed the primacy of human dignity, equality, and the rule of law over expedient but unconstitutional measures.
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2025 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040
