Salwa Judum and the Republic’s dilemma-Security at the cost of rights

When Justice Sudarshan Reddy fought for the position of the Vice President of India, his landmark judgement on the conflict between the Rule of Law and governance of the Executive was discussed widely.

In July 2011, the Supreme Court delivered one of its most powerful constitutional pronouncements in Nandini Sundar & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, popularly known as the Salwa Judum case. At the heart of the decision was a simple but profound question: Can the State, in the name of combating insurgency, arm untrained civilians and outsource the monopoly of violence that belongs solely to lawful state institutions?

The Court’s emphatic answer was no. The practice of creating and arming Special Police Officers (SPOs) from among tribal youth to fight Maoist insurgents was declared unconstitutional, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

As someone who has studied, taught and written extensively about constitutional law, many experts, including this writer, saw this judgment not just as a prohibition against a particular policy but as a moral compass for governance. More than a decade later, its echoes are deeply relevant to India’s contemporary crises.

The Supreme Court’s ruling: Why it stood out:

The Supreme Court, led by Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar did not limit itself to procedural questions. Instead, it dug into the essence of constitutional governance.

The apex court made four crucial points:

Monopoly of violence belongs only to the State-The State cannot delegate coercive powers to untrained and unregulated civilian groups. Any attempt to do so undermines the rule of law.

Fundamental rights cannot be suspended by governance shortcuts-Arming civilians and placing them in direct conflict with insurgents violated the rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21.

Administrative convenience is not an excuse-The Court rejected the argument that economic hardship or manpower shortage justified outsourcing policing functions. Constitutional duties cannot be abandoned for expediency.

The State must remain a protector, not a predator-In trying to fight Maoists by unconstitutional means, the State risked becoming indistinguishable from the forces of violence it claimed to oppose.

In its essence, the judgment was a reminder that the ends do not justify the means when those means tear at the fabric of constitutional morality.

Connecting the judgment to today’s India: The beauty of landmark constitutional pronouncements is that they travel beyond their immediate contexts.

The Salwa Judum judgment was about Chhattisgarh and Maoist insurgency. But today, it speaks of multiple ongoing crises in India.

1. Manipur’s Ethnic Violence (2023–2025): The prolonged conflict in Manipur has seen allegations of civilians being armed and local militias operating unchecked. Houses have been set ablaze; communities displaced, and the authority of the State fractured.

This situation is a chilling reminder of what the Supreme Court warned against in Salwa Judum. When governments allow or encourage parallel forces to act as enforcers, they invite lawlessness. The judgment is a constitutional mirror to Manipur: the State must disarm militias, restore the monopoly of lawful policing, and rebuild trust in constitutional institutions.

2. Rise of vigilantism across India: Whether it is cow-protection groups, anti-conversion squads, or local committees taking justice into their own hands, India has seen a surge of non-state actors exercising coercive authority.

The Salwa Judum judgment makes it clear that even tacit state encouragement of such groups is unconstitutional. If law enforcement looks the other way—or worse, legitimises vigilantes—it is abdicating its constitutional role. The Court’s words echo strongly: law cannot be upheld by illegality.

3. Outsourcing of security and surveillance: In recent years, there has been a growing trend of outsourcing security functions—whether through private contractors, neighborhood watch committees, or even technology companies engaged in surveillance.

The judgment’s principle applies here as well. Efficiency, cost-saving, or administrative ease cannot override the constitutional requirement that coercive power must remain within accountable, legally regulated state institutions. Otherwise, citizens are left vulnerable to abuse with little recourse.

The larger constitutional philosophy:

The Salwa Judum case was more than a policy review. It was a constitutional reaffirmation of the social contract. Citizens surrender some freedoms to the State in return for protection, justice and equality under the law. If the State outsources its role or weaponizes civilians, it betrays that contract.

Experts have emphasised that the Constitution is not a set of flexible rules to be bent in moments of crisis. It is the very foundation of governance. When crises test us most, fidelity to the Constitution becomes even more important.

The judgment also underscores another critical idea: human dignity as the core of constitutional morality. By placing untrained tribal youth in direct conflict with heavily armed insurgents, the State was treating them as expendable instruments, not as citizens with dignity. The Court rightly called out this violation.

Why this judgment matters more than ever before:

As India moves forward, the temptation to find “shortcuts” in governance will always remain. Political leaders may argue that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. But the Salwa Judum verdict warns us: when the State fights illegality with illegality, it ceases to be a constitutional republic.

The ongoing debates:

Should technology companies with private algorithms be allowed to determine surveillance and policing?

Should local vigilante groups be tolerated because they serve “community protection”?

Should economic constraints justify privatising essential state functions like law enforcement?

In all these debates, the answer lies in the principles laid down in Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

A beacon for policymakers:

The lesson for today’s policymakers is clear: constitutional governance is not optional—it is non-negotiable. Security, stability, and peace cannot be purchased at the cost of constitutional principles.

The judgment should be taught in public administration schools, police academies and governance institutions. It is not only a legal precedent but also a moral text for statecraft.

Conclusion-Constitution is the only weapon:

The Salwa Judum judgment remains one of the most remarkable examples of judicial courage in modern India. It spoke truth to power, demanded accountability and reasserted the primacy of constitutional morality.

Today, when India faces conflicts from Manipur to the red corridor and when vigilantism and privatization of security threaten democratic order, this judgment shines brighter than ever.

As authors of law have long argued, a republic that bends its rules in the name of security ultimately undermines the security of its citizens. The true weapon of governance is not militias, not vigilantes, not private contractors—it is the Constitution itself.

In remembering Salwa Judum, we are reminded of an unshakable truth-our democracy survives not by the strength of its shortcuts, but by the strength of its principles.

Though the ruling power coalition of NDA won the election, India lost a chance to work in Rajya Sabha as Chairman and Vice President. Still, our civil society strongly advocates rule of law. On that count, we have not lost anything.

(The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)