One crucial example to comprehend is how the Indian judiciary has evaluated the permissibility of using special police officers (SPOs) in violent confrontations between the government of India and Maoist/Naxalite forces in Chhattisgarh. In 2007, a writ petition was used to take the current matter to the Supreme Court. The matter was determined by the Honorable Division Bench of the Supreme Court, which consists of Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Honorable Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. The Court’s main focus in this case was to examine whether the State of Chhattisgarh Government’s deployment of tribal people as special police officers (SPOs) to quell the insurgency was constitutionally permissible.
nandini sundar v state of chhattisgarh Case Facts
- Nandini Sundar filed a writ suit directly with the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2006.
- The hearing was delayed, and she was found to have violated human rights that same month. The case was repeated in 2007 and she was given a judgement in 2011.
- When Nandini Sundar, a professor of sociology at the University of Delhi, and Aadhar’s civil rights activities looked into the fact-finding machine to travel to a spot of interdependencies initiative and tired of filing complaints against Salwa judum activists, they approached a number of commissions and Ministries and were informed about the human rights violation committed by Selva judam.
- After receiving an adequate response from these commissions and ministries, they approached the Supreme Court in 2007.
nandini sundar v state of chhattisgarh Issues
- The primary issue of this case was to objectively examine the Chhattisgarh government’s hiring of tribal people as Special Police Officers, or SPOs, as well as the legality of the chandigarh police act 2007.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s attorneys argued that a legitimate challenge should consider access ability. A specific route needs to be followed in order to get to a given place. Clearly, the person filing the petition “properly collects affidavits.”
- Every time there is a significant encounter or killing in the northeast, southwest, or south, attempts are made to obtain information from the petitioner.
- Finding the facts independently has grown more challenging as a result of the activities of the police and paramilitary groups. It was basically a government-approved vigilante movement that forced individuals to attend demonstrations before dragging them to neighbouring villages where they were set on fire. Reaching the location is difficult due to its remoteness. One needs to follow a certain path in order to reach the location.
Respondent:
- The respondent’s attorneys argued that the state of Chattisgarh exclusively hires young tribal people who “willingly volunteer for such roles.” It goes on to say that many of these young people are taking action either as a delegation to defend their houses from naxal attacks or as personal witnesses of Naxal violence impacting them or their families.
- Even if the arrangements given by the State of Chhattisgarh are impartment, it is more challenging for them as well. These sequences provide a world where the state’s accountability story is resolved, or they address human rights issues related to the selection of these young people as SPOs.
nandini sundar v state of chhattisgarh Judgment
- The state of Chhattisgarh promptly withdraws and refrains from employing SPOs in any way or form for any activities, whether direct or indirect, that are intended to curb, oppose, lessen, or end Maoist/Naxalite activity within the state.
- The Union of India shall immediately stop and desist from using any of its funds to assist, directly or indirectly, in the hiring of SPOs in order to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Maoist and Naxalite groups.
- All firearms provided to any of the SPOs, along with any accessories issued to utilize them, must be recalled immediately by the State of Chhattisgarh.
- The State of Chhattisgarh will immediately organize to provide the required protection and take any necessary action, within the confines of constitutional permissibility, to protect the lives of people who had previously worked as SPOs.
- The State of Chhattisgarh will take all necessary steps to stop any group, including but not limited to Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, from operating in a way that would allow them to take private law enforcement, act in violation of the constitution, or violate anyone’s human rights in any other way.
- The actions that the State of Chhattisgarh will take will involve, but not be restricted to, the filing of the proper FIRs, the diligent prosecution, and the investigation of all previously improperly or insufficiently investigated cases of alleged criminal activities of Salwa Judum or those known as Koya Commandos.
- Furthermore, it is unconstitutional for SPOs to be appointed to carry out any of the responsibilities of regular police officers, save for those listed in Sections 23(1) (h) and 23 (1) (i) of the chhattisgarh police act 2007. Additionally, the court supported the human rights breach in this particular case.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
