India is preparing for the election of its next Vice-President. On August 22, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, addressing a gathering organized by the Manorama group, launched a personal attack on the opposition’s candidate, Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy. Shah declared: “The opposition’s candidate Sudarshan Reddy is the one who gave the Salwa Judum judgment to help Left-Wing Extremism. Had this judgment not been delivered, Naxalism would have ended by 2020. This gentleman delivered the Salwa Judum judgment out of ideological conviction.”
Justice Reddy responded that it was not his personal judgment but a Supreme Court decision, grounded in constitutional reasoning. The judgment held that the state cannot arm civilians and leave its authority unchecked. The bench, comprising Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar, wrote: “The state government cannot arm citizens to deal with violence. It is the duty of a democratic state to protect the rights and lives of its citizens, not to push them into combat.”
It is precisely this constitutional principle that seems to have offended the Home Minister. By targeting the opposition’s candidate, Shah is not merely criticizing an individual but questioning the entire judicial legacy and constitutional framework that seeks to maintain balance in a democracy. His remarks point to a troubling disregard for the separation of powers.
The Vice-Presidential election, scheduled for September 9, 2025, saw 46 nominations filed by the deadline of August 21. After scrutiny on August 22, only two serious contenders remained in the fray: the ruling party’s nominee C.P. Radhakrishnan and the opposition’s nominee Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy.
Radhakrishnan’s political life has been shaped by the RSS. At 17, he became a state executive member of the Jan Sangh. He was appointed BJP state secretary in Tamil Nadu in 1996, later serving twice as a Member of Parliament from Coimbatore. His career includes stints as Governor of Jharkhand, with additional charge of Telangana and Puducherry, and subsequently as Governor of Maharashtra in 2024.
Justice Reddy, in contrast, built his life around the judiciary and the Constitution. Graduating in law from Osmania University in 1971, he began practice under senior advocate K. Pratap Reddy. He served as president of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association in 1993-94, became a High Court judge in 1995, Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court in 2005, and a Supreme Court judge in 2007 until his retirement in 2011. His career reflects a deep commitment to constitutionalism.
The ruling party’s hunger to control even the Vice-President’s office must be seen in the light of the ideological roots of the RSS. The organization’s attitude towards the Constitution and the national flag has long been skeptical. In Bunch of Thoughts, M.S. Golwalkar dismissed India’s Constitution as a burdensome patchwork of Western ideas with nothing truly Indian about it. On August 14, 1947, the RSS mouthpiece Organizer wrote that Hindus would never respect or accept the tricolor. Eminent lawyer A.G. Noorani, in The RSS: A Menace to India, reminds us that the RSS rejected the Constitution outright, publishing a white paper in 1993 branding it “anti-Hindu.” Even senior BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi called for reconsidering the Constitution, and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee once set up a commission to review it.
The Salwa Judum judgment, which Amit Shah criticizes, arose out of an inhumane reality. More than 650 villages were burned, 50,000 people were forced into camps funded by corporations like Tata and Essar, and over 150,000 were displaced. It was against this background that the Supreme Court intervened to stop the state from outsourcing violence to vigilante groups. By condemning this judgment, the Home Minister aligns himself against constitutional protections and portrays a Supreme Court decision as an ideological act.
The ruling party seems intent on delegitimizing any voice that dares to resist. Does it wish for an opposition that neither contests elections nor questions power? How long can such a system call itself a democracy? The spectacle of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sudden resignation in July 2025 still lingers. His resignation, citing health reasons, came hours after chairing multiple meetings and rejecting opposition demands. It was accepted within 24 hours, raising serious doubts about the circumstances. It looked less like a personal decision and more like a political move forced by pressure.
The larger question is this: who is fit to hold a constitutional office like the Vice-Presidency? Is it Radhakrishnan, steeped in RSS ideology since youth, or Justice Reddy, who rose from Osmania University to the nation’s highest court and consistently upheld constitutional values? At this moment, when forces inspired by Manusmriti and Godse are mobilizing against the Indian democratic order, the country needs someone who embodies the spirit of constitutional democracy, someone capable of standing against authoritarianism and carrying forward the rule of law in public interest.
When a powerful minister attacks a judicial figure on personal grounds, it signals not only intolerance toward political opposition but also a willingness to erode judicial traditions and institutional independence. This is deeply dangerous for democracy, for it conveys that anyone—whether in the judiciary, in constitutional office, or in the media—who dares to question the government will be reduced to a target of political assault.
Protecting India’s constitutional democracy in such a climate requires individuals who have journeyed through its institutions with integrity and who remain committed to safeguarding its spirit, even when the ruling establishment wages a campaign against it.
---
*Independent journalist and social activist. A version of this article first appeared in The Wire Hindi
Comments