Nandini sundar & othrs Vs.

State of Chatisgarh
Salwa Judum which means Peace march in the gondi dialect is an armed civilan vigilant group, an outburst of pent up of feelings of tribals, who have suffered for long at the hands of naxalites. The fight between tribals forming themselves into Salwa Judum and naxalites continued since its inception in 2005. (By jan 2006, the movement spread to many parts of dantewada) With the increasing attack on salwa judum supporters by Naxalites, large number of tribals started leaving villages in groups and occupying land adjacent to police station. Thus were shelter camps set up. (40k to 60 k). With the shelter camps growing more and more, the administration was at fix due to inadequate police staff. Being centres of activities against the Naxalites, these camps were the prime targets of Naxalites. Thus, the able bodied from amongst the villagers were recruited as SPOs and they were tasked to help the local police and security forces to provide security to the relief camps. Besides these, as these SPOs are familiar with the terrains and are victims of naxalite violence, they r highly motivated to fight against naxalites These SPOs were initially recruited u/Indian Police Act, 1861 and later u/Chattisgarh Police Act, 2007. U/CPA, 2007, SPOs r to be recruited by Superintendent of Police unlike the colonial act, which requires authorisation of Magistrate. The salient features of the act r as follows: Section 9(1): Subject to Rules prescribed in this behalf, the Superintendant of Police

may at any time, by an order in writing, appoint any person to act as a Special Police Officer for a period as specified in the appointment order.
Their jobs temporary and are stipulated to do all sort of duties which an ordinary police officer recruited thru Indian police system does. They r paid an honorarium of 3,500 rupees and can be terminated from job without assigning any reason for the terminations. In 2007 social activists like Nandini Sundar, Swami Agnivesh, former bureaucrat Sarma and historian Rama Chandra guhaa filed writ petitions alleging mass violence by these SPOs alias Salwa Judum alias Koya commanders.

They alleged that, many minor tribal boys r employed as SPOs and Salwa Judum is creating ransack by burning huts and murdering people on the suspicion that they r supporters of Naxalites/Maoists and women were raped. The State govt and Central govt. Supporting the cause of Salwa Judum have claimed that they are a) preferring 5th standard pass youth over illiterates, b) formulated a time table in which the criminal law provisions and constitution r taught to them in a span of two months, c) teaching them the techniques in holding and using firearms(sic). The Supreme Court on hearing the either side has ordered the following: o 1)The State of Chattisgarh immediately cease and desist from using SPOs in any manner or form in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities in the State of Chattisgarh; o 2) The Union of India to cease and desist, forthwith, from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/Naxalite groups; o 3) The State of Chattisgarh shall forthwith make every effort to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs, whether current or former, along with any and all accoutrements and accessories issued to use such firearms. The word firearm as used shall include any and all forms of guns, rifles, launchers etc., of whatever calibre; o 4) The State of Chattisgarh shall forthwith make arrangements to provide appropriate security and undertake such measures as are necessary, and within bounds of constitutional permissibility, to protect the lives of those who had been employed as SPOs previously, or who had been given any initial orders of selection or appointment, from any and all forces, including but not limited to Maoists/Naxalites; and o 5) The State of Chattisgarh shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, that in any manner or form seek to take law into private hands,

act unconstitutionally or otherwise violate the human rights of any person. The measures to be taken by the State of Chattisgarh shall include, but not be limited to, investigation of all previously inappropriately or incompletely investigated instances of alleged criminal activities of Salwa Judum, or those popularly known as Koya Commandos, filing of appropriate FIRs and diligent prosecution. o 6) In addition to the above, we hold that appointment of SPOs to perform any of the duties of regular police officers, other than those specified in Section 23(1) (h) and Section 23(1)(i) of Chattisgarh Police Act, 2007, to be unconstitutional. We further hold that tribal youth, who had been previously engaged as SPOs in counterinsurgency activities, in whatever form, against Maoists/Naxalites may be employed as SPOs to perform duties limited to those enumerated in Sections 23(1)(h) and 23(1)(i) of CPA 2007, provided that they have not engaged in any activities, whether as a part of their duties as SPOs engaged in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists/Naxalites, and Left Wing Extremism or in their own individual or private capacities, that may be deemed to be violations of human rights of other individuals or violations of any disciplinary code. Salwa judum on touch stone of Articles 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution : A. Article 14 is violated because subjecting such youngsters to the same levels of dangers as members of the regular force who have better educational backgrounds, receive better training, and because of better educational backgrounds possess a better capacity to benefit from training that is appropriate for the duties to be performed in counter insurgency activities, would be to treat unequal as equals. ....the policy of employing such youngsters as SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency activities is irrational, arbitrary and capricious. B. Article 21 is violated because, notwithstanding the claimed volition on the part of these youngsters to appointment as SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency activities, youngsters with such low educational qualifications cannot be expected to understand the dangers that they are likely to face, the skills needed to face such dangers, and the requirements of the necessary judgment while discharging such responsibilities. Further, because of their low levels of educational achievements, they will also not be

in a position to benefit from an appropriately designed training program, that is commensurate with the kinds of duties, liabilities, disciplinary code and dangers that they face, to their lives and health. Consequently, appointing such youngsters as SPOs with duties, that would involve any counterinsurgency activities against the Maoists, even if it were claimed that they have been put through rigorous training, would be to endanger their lives. The Court criticised the Union's hands-off policy on SPOs, which involved funding the project but no follow through on how precisely these forces were functioning. The Court questioned the Centres attitude of abstaining from the mandate of ARTICLE 355 which mandates that the Union ensure that every State government acts in accordance with the Constitution.