INDIA’S CURRENT HOME MINISTER is no ordinary minister. He is one of the two most powerful leaders of the Union government, one whose words command wide authority. It has been widely reported that in the course of delivering a public speech in Kochi, Kerala, on August 22, 2025, the Union Home Minister made a shocking allegation — that between 2007 and 2011, a judge of the Supreme Court of India was a supporter of Naxalism and that, “driven by” the Naxalist ideology, the judge had delivered a judgment that protected Naxalism.
That judge, Justice Sudarshan Reddy, is currently the opposition candidate in the election for the Vice President of India. The judgment that he referred to was Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), delivered fourteen years ago by a two judge Bench of Justices Reddy and S.S. Nijjar. The order had not been signed as being authored by Justice Reddy alone.
Even as civil society, including several former judges and myself, have critically responded to the home minister’s speech pointing out that his charge is without any basis, the Supreme Court of India has remained silent. But why should the Supreme Court react? What should it do?
The Supreme Court should react because the Union Home Minister’s charge is not only against a person but also a very serious one against the Court itself — alleging that in 2011, the Court harboured a supporter of Naxalism amongst its judges and that one of its orders had been driven by Naxalist ideology.
What the Union Home MInister meant when he referred to ‘Naxalism’ is explained clearly in a very recent (April, 2025) note by the Ministry of Home Affairs entitled “Naxalmukt Bharat Abhiyan: From Red Zones to Growth Corridors: India’s Decisive Battle Against Left Wing Extremism”.
