Sudershan Reddy was a judge committed to upholding human rights and a critic of neoliberalism

Amongst his most notable verdicts was his 2011 judgment, which declared the controversial Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh as unconstitutional.

While the decision was widely lauded for protecting human rights, it also sparked controversy for its sharp critique of globalisation.

Invoking Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’, the judgment framed the entire conflict as a product of neoliberal violence, and warned against “a culture of unrestrained selfishness and greed spawned by the neoliberal paradigm.”

Nevertheless, it was a fine judgment. What made this judgment exceptional was the Bench’s ability to combine a firm condemnation of the Salwa Judum with a sensitive recognition of the plight of those caught in its machinery. While striking down the use of Special Police Officers (SPOs), the bench observed that many of them were themselves victims of circumstance, describing their condition as that of “cannon fodder.”

This humane acknowledgement highlighted how the state’s failure in the equitable distribution of public goods, such as human security, had pushed vulnerable citizens into cycles of violence.

The judgment stands out not only for dismantling an unconstitutional state practice but also for its deep moral insight into the layered nature of victimhood.

Legal analysis is embedded in social realities

Eminent legal scholar Kalyani Ramnath, in her paper titled “The Runaway Judgment: Law as Literature, Courtcraft and Constitutional Visions,” makes a significant observation on this case. She writes that while the original petition had focused on the illegality of appointing SPOs because many of them were below the age of eighteen, the judges went far beyond, declaring the entire process unconstitutional.

They held that arming tribal youth without their “informed consent” was not only a violation of their dignity as individual citizens but also an erosion of the dignity of human life itself. As Ramnath underscores, the Court’s reasoning placed the realities of social inequality at the centre of its analysis, which is why the bench concluded that the practice violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Harsh on ‘Black Money’

Justice Reddy, who is now the candidate for the Opposition INDIA bloc, which the Congress party leads, is known to have severely censured the UPA government in 2011 for its inability to seriously tackle the cases of corruption and black money.

Just before retiring, Justice Reddy delivered a landmark judgment in Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India, where he ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, to investigate unaccounted funds stashed in foreign banks.

In the scathing indictment of the state he observed in the judgment, “The failure is not of the Constitutional values or of the powers available to the State; the failure has been of human agency”.

A reputation that has appealed to all sides of the political divide

Justice Reddy’s legal acumen and unimpeachable integrity have earned him respect across the political spectrum, with various state governments of different political parties entrusting him with crucial assignments. In 2013, just two years after he retired from the Supreme Court, he was appointed as the first Lokayukta of Goa.

In 2022, the Supreme Court entrusted him with yet another vital responsibility, appointing him as the Oversight Authority for the implementation of the Comprehensive Environmental Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) in relation to mining operations in Karnataka. Most recently, the Revanth Reddy government of Telangana appointed him to chair an independent 11-member high-level committee tasked with the verification, analysis, and comprehensive study of the caste census.

In 2011, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, along with Justice Mukul Mudgal and noted jurist Fali Nariman, headed the inquiry committee into impeachment proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, accused of fund misappropriation and misleading the court. Acting on the committee’s findings, the Rajya Sabha debated the motion on August 17–18, 2011, and passed it — making Justice Sen the first sitting judge against whom a House of Parliament approved an impeachment motion.

Reddy’s been inflexible when it comes to protecting human rights

Justice Reddy’s deep concern for the protection of human rights was always anchored in his principled insistence on due process, and any deviation from the rule of law drew his sharp criticism.

A careful and dispassionate examination of Justice Reddy’s career leaves little doubt about where his deepest commitments lay: upholding human rights and fighting corruption. At times, his judgments carried an unmistakable ideological edge — as in Salwa Judum, where he was unsparing in his criticism of neo-liberal statecraft. Yet, he was considered a competent and independent judge, respected for his integrity. His foray into politics, including the vice-presidential election where the numbers are stacked against him, is a passing chapter. What will remain far longer is the stamp of a judge who never shied away from speaking truth to power.