New Delhi: In a fresh twist to the heated vice-presidential election campaign, 56 former judges have come out in strong support of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, countering criticism from a group of retired jurists over his remarks on Opposition candidate B Sudershan Reddy.
In an open letter released late Sunday, these ex-judges dismissed claims that Shah’s comments threatened judicial independence, arguing instead that repeated partisan statements from some retired colleagues are tarnishing the judiciary’s reputation.
The controversy erupted after Shah accused Reddy – a former Supreme Court judge and the INDIA bloc’s pick for vice-president – of indirectly backing Naxalism through his role in the landmark 2011 Salwa Judum ruling. That verdict had declared the Chhattisgarh government’s anti-Maoist vigilante groups unconstitutional, a decision Shah labelled as supportive of leftist extremism during a recent rally. Eighteen retired judges, including heavyweights like former Supreme Court justices Kurian Joseph, Madan B. Lokur, and J. Chelameswar, had earlier slammed Shah’s interpretation as “unfortunate” and “biased,” warning it could erode public trust in the courts.
But the 56 signatories, comprising retired high court and Supreme Court judges, pushed back hard in their letter. “As former judges of this country, we feel compelled to record our deep disagreement with the recent statement issued by some retired judges and activists,” they wrote. They highlighted what they called a “predictable pattern” where the same voices chime in on every major political event, cloaking their biases in the garb of defending judicial autonomy.
“This practice does grave injustice to the institution we once served, as it portrays judges as political actors,” the letter stated. “It undermines the dignity, impartiality, and stature expected from the judicial office.” The judges emphasised that Reddy, by stepping into the political arena as a vice-presidential contender, must defend his record like any other candidate – through open debate, not by invoking judicial sanctity.
They went further, asserting that critiquing a political hopeful doesn’t endanger judicial freedom. “In fact, the judiciary’s prestige suffers when ex-judges issue frequent one-sided statements, creating the impression that the institution itself is entangled in political battles,” the letter read. “This leads to the entire judicial community being viewed as a partisan bloc, which is neither fair nor healthy for the judiciary or India’s democracy.”
Wrapping up their appeal, the former judges urged their peers to steer clear of politically motivated declarations. “Let those who have chosen politics defend themselves in that realm. The judicial institution must be kept aloof from it,” they concluded.
This exchange underscores the blurring lines between judiciary and politics in India’s charged electoral landscape. Reddy, who retired from the apex court in 2011, has faced scrutiny over his judicial legacy, particularly the Salwa Judum case, which dismantled state-backed militias in Maoist-hit areas. Shah’s barbs have amplified the narrative, positioning the VP race as a clash between anti-insurgency hardliners and civil liberties advocates.
As polling day approaches, the duelling letters from retired judges highlight deeper divides. While Shah’s supporters see it as legitimate political discourse, critics fear it sets a dangerous precedent for attacking court rulings.