The Salwa Judum case goes back to July 2011, when the Supreme Court struck down the Chhattisgarh government’s practice of arming local tribal youth as a civilian militia to fight Maoists. This movement, called Salwa Judum (“peace march”), was criticised for human rights violations, displacements, and violence.

In its landmark judgment, a Bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar held that the state cannot outsource its constitutional duty of providing security. The Court said only the state, through a properly trained and equipped police force, has the exclusive right to use force. Delegating that to a vigilante group was an “abdication of responsibility.”

The case is in the news again because Union Home Minister Amit Shah alleged that if Justice Reddy had not delivered this judgment, Naxalism would have been eradicated before 2020. Responding in an interview, Justice Reddy clarified that the Court never barred the government from fighting Naxals, only from using militias in place of professional security forces.

Now, with Justice Reddy contesting as the INDIA bloc’s Vice-Presidential candidate, the debate around the Salwa Judum ruling has gained fresh political traction.