The opposition has nominated retired Supreme Court Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy as its candidate in the Vice-Presidential election. During his tenure in the Supreme Court, he delivered several important judgments, some of which the ruling party is now preparing to use as political weapons against the opposition.
New Delhi: The upcoming Vice-Presidential election in India has intensified the political activity. The opposition has made the contest interesting by fielding former Supreme Court Judge B. Sudarshan Reddy as its candidate. Meanwhile, the ruling NDA has declared the Governor of Maharashtra, C. P. Radhakrishnan, as its nominee. While the arithmetic favors the NDA, the opposition's move has brought the election into the spotlight. Additionally, the BJP is now using some of B. Sudarshan Reddy's past judgments as ammunition against the opposition.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case and Controversy
The judgment that the BJP is making the biggest issue is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. In May 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the CBI's petition to reinstate the harsher charges against the accused in the tragedy. This decision was made by a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, which included Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy.
BJP leaders allege that this decision failed to deliver justice to thousands of the deceased and victim families. BJP spokesperson Tejinder Bagga wrote on social media:
'Anderson took the lives of 25,000 Indians in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Rajiv Gandhi helped him escape, and when the CBI appealed to reopen the case, Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy dismissed it.'
Ban on Salwa Judum: Security vs. Human Rights
In July 2011, a bench of Justices Reddy and S.S. Nijjar declared the Chhattisgarh government's policy of appointing tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) unconstitutional. Under this scheme, youths were being trained as Salwa Judum or Koya Commandos to combat Naxalism.
Justice Reddy stated in his order that this step was not only against constitutional principles but also a grave violation of human rights. As soon as his candidacy was announced, the BJP turned this into a major weapon to attack the opposition. Party leader Amit Malviya said that this decision weakened the anti-Naxal campaign and exemplified “judicial sympathy” towards Maoists.
Judgment on Reservation Policy in Army Medical College
In another significant decision, Justice Reddy declared the policy of reserving all seats in the Army College of Medical Sciences exclusively for the children of military personnel as unconstitutional. He stated that this policy violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and could deprive students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes of higher education. This decision was given in 2011.
The BJP argues that this decision affected the rights of the families of army personnel, while the opposition describes it as a historic decision in favor of social justice. Shortly before his retirement, Justice Reddy bly criticized the central government regarding the black money investigation. He ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by retired Supreme Court Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy to investigate black money deposited in foreign banks. The opposition often cites this step in their arguments, portraying it as an example of a “strict and impartial judiciary.”
