INDIA bloc VP poll pick: Ex-SC judge who delivered order outlawing Salwa Judum
A bench of justices Reddy and SS Nijjar disbanded Salwa Judum, calling arming civilians 'unethical and dangerous' and violative of the Constitution's Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life). The Salwa Judum, which was accused of human rights abuses, was a state-sponsored militia raised in 2005 to counter Maoist insurgency. It comprised largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who announced Justice (retd) Reddy's candidature, said opposition parties decided to have a common candidate, and the decision has been taken unanimously. He called the candidature a big achievement for democracy.
Justice (retd) Reddy has authored the book 'Preamble of the Constitution'. He has highlighted the response of Bhimrao Ambedkar, who chaired the committee that drafted the Constitution, to right-wing groups, which criticised it for borrowing ideas. He noted that Ambedkar said there was no shame in it and that it is wise to adopt good ideas, no matter where they come from.
Justice (retd) Reddy has questioned critics belittling the contribution of the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, asking whether they even understand his depth of knowledge evident in his seminal work 'The Discovery of India', exploring the Upanishads, the Himalayas, the Ganga, the Aryans, and Mohenjo Daro. He challenged those who pretend to be learned while unfairly blaming Nehru.
Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, former central information commissioner, said Justice (retd) Reddy was deeply committed as a judge to the rule of law. He said he dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the democratic framework. 'Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles. Justice (retd) B Sudarshan Reddy is one among them,' he said.
Justice (retd) Reddy, who was due to file his nomination on August 21, was born into an agricultural family on July 8, 1946, in Telangana's Ranga Reddy. He graduated in law from Osmania University in Hyderabad in 1971 and started practising in the Hyderabad civil courts. Justice (retd) Reddy was named the government pleader in August 1988 in the Andhra Pradesh high court and argued the revenue department cases. He continued in the post until January 1990.
He was appointed as an additional standing counsel for the central government and elected as Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association president in 1993. Elevated as an additional high court judge in May 1995, he was appointed as the Gauhati high court Chief Justice in December 2005. He was elevated as a Supreme Court judge in January 2007 and retired in July 2011. Justice (retd) Reddy was appointed Goa's first Lokayukta in March 2013. He resigned from the post on personal grounds in October 2013.
A supporter of the separate Telangana state, Justice (retd) Reddy also supported the bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh high court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Presidential reference: SC questions Centre, AG over pendency of bills with governors since 2020
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre and the attorney general over the long pendency of bills passed by assemblies with governors, underscoring the limitations of constitutional courts in situations where legislation has been pending since 2020. Presidential reference: SC questions Centre, AG over pendency of bills with governors since 2020 The query from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai came while hearing a presidential reference seeking clarity on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on governors and President while dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and President for acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The bench, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the presidential reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction. Attorney General R Venkataramani, whose assistance was sought by the top court, said courts cannot exercise its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to rule the bills pending with Governor, are deemed to have been passed. Justice Kant asked Venkataramani whether bills were pending before Tamil Nadu Governor since 2020. The AG said those facts were not before the court and the court had to examine the "lis" before it. "The court has to look at the law, whether such an order can be passed. Even if it is factually correct…there were explanations given for that. There was an explanation why the governor kept the bills pending. We are talking about state of powers on whether Article 142 can be invoked to declare the bills deemed to have been passed," he said. The bench, however, asked him, "What can you enlighten us about what a constitutional court would do if it has to deal with such facts ? If the court went wrong according to you, what is the constitutionally permissible way to deal with this situation?" The CJI and Justice Narasimha also questioned Venkataramani while referring to certain paragraphs in the April 15 verdict, dealing with the reasons for invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. "Just see the egregious situation where it had come to.. it was to remedy that situation that the court had to step in. The bills were pending for so long. What option did the court have?" Justice Narasimha asked. Venkataramani said once the court enters into this arena, it would be asked to consider any "mind-boggling fact" but the question was "can the court enter this arena at all". Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said these questions have come before the republic for the first time and urged the court to not go into the facts of individual cases. "There may be some deviations, either in legislature or in executive or sometimes in judiciary but there are checks and balances. We have to deal with these issues holistically," Mehta submitted. He said there could be errant cases of governors, ministers, right or wrong advice or timeline lagging but the core issue being significant for the democracy, the court could advise on related to the role of President and governors in a federal structure. Earlier in the hearing, while replying to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments, Mehta said the top court possesses an inherent power to overrule its judgments which was not a part of any appellate power. "This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arose and will arise because of no authoritative pronouncement. Its because a two-judge bench fixed the timeline for another authority. There is a constitutional problem how Governor and President would highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgment has created a constitutional problem," he said. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The Centre said in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder". The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on Wednesday. On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect of bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Scroll.in
28 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
EC says those aggrieved at being left out of draft Bihar voter list can file claims using Aadhaar
The Election Commission on Tuesday said that those aggrieved at being left out of the draft voters' list in Bihar after the special intensive revision exercise can file claims using their Aadhaar cards. This comes after the Supreme Court on August 14 directed the poll panel to specify in public notices that persons excluded from the draft list released on August 1 can furnish their Aadhaar cards at the time of submitting their claims for inclusion in the final list. The document was not among the poll body's 11 accepted proofs of identity. Several petitioners had objected to the exclusion of Aadhaar, the most widely held ID, from the list of permissible documents, calling it ' absurd '. In a notice on Tuesday, the Election Commission said that the list of names not included in the draft list, along with the reasons for the deletion, is displayed on the websites of the district election officers and the chief electoral officers in a searchable mode with an Electors Photo Identification Card number. 'Aggrieved persons may submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhar card,' the notice said. A day earlier, Bihar Chief Electoral Officer Vinod Singh Gunjiyal also said in a notice that the list of voters excluded from the draft list had been displayed at all block offices, panchayat offices, municipal bodies offices and polling stations, The Indian Express reported. The draft roll published on August 1 showed that 65.6 lakh names were removed from the list. Of these, 22 lakh were due to deaths, 36 lakh were of people who had permanently shifted or were untraceable and seven lakh were duplicate entries, the Election Commission had said then. In its order on August 14, the court also directed the poll panel to publish a district-wise list of the voters whose names were deleted from the draft list, along with the reason for each deletion, such as death, migration or double registration. Sharing the list as well as the reasons for deletions would improve 'voter confidence' in the institution, it had said. The court passed the directions in response to petitions challenging the voter roll revision in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, expected in October or November. Following the order, the Election Commission on Sunday published the names of the 65 lakh voters removed from the draft electoral rolls. Please Read #Bihar SIR DAILY BULLETIN: 1st Aug(3 PM) till 19th Aug (11 AM)at Other Ref. Links: Link 1: Link 2: Link 3: Link 4: Link 5: — Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) August 19, 2025 Bihar voter roll revision The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list needed to submit proof of eligibility to vote. Voters born before July 1, 1987, were required to show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, had to also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, needed proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. The draft voter list, published on August 1, comprises electors who submitted their enumeration forms to the poll panel between June 24 and July 26. They will now have to produce proof of citizenship to make it to the final list that will be published on September 30.
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'No north or south…': B. Sudershan Reddy speaks after being named Opposition Vice Presidential pick
The INDIA bloc Vice-Presidential candidate B. Sudershan Reddy said on Tuesday that there was only one citizenship in the country. Opposition's Vice-Presidential Candidate & former Supreme Court Judge B. Sudershan Reddy being Welcomed by MPs of Opposition Parties at Delhi airport in New Delhi, India, on Tuesday, August 19, 2025. (Hindustan Times) The former Supreme Court justice said that both he and his opponent, NDA candidate CP Radhakrishnan, are Indians, and it doesn't matter if it is North, South, East, or West. "It is the Parliamentarians who elect the Vice President. Political parties may sponsor the candidates. There is only one citizenship in this country. Myself and CP Raadhakrishnan ji are Indian nationals. Whether it is South, North, East, West, nothing matters," Reddy was quoted by ANI as saying. The former judge was announced as the opposition candidate for next month's Vice-Presidential election after a meeting at Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge's residence on Tuesday afternoon. The election is scheduled for September 9, and the final date for filing the nomination is August 22.
