NANDINI SUNDAR VS STATE OF CHATTISGARH : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court held in Nandini Sundar Vs State of Chattisgarh  (2011) 8 SCR 1028 that appointment of Special Police Officers ( SPOs) known as Salva Judum was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Widespread violation of human rights were alleged in Dantewala district and adjoining regions on account of Naxalite insurgency. State of Chattisgarh passed Chhatisgarh Police Act, 2007 wherein Superintendent of Police was empowered to appoint special police officer (SPO).  Using this provision, the Chattishgarh Government  promoted armed group consisting of  tribals  known as  “Salva Judum” as one of the counter measures. The power granted to the Superintendent of Police was unguided and uncanalised.  Many of illiterate/semi-literate tribals were being appointed as SPO and being armed for fighting with naxal insurgency.  They were being paid honorarium for their services. The constitution of Salva Judum was challenged before the Supreme Court by sociologist Nandini Sundar, a sociologist and Ramchandra Guha, a historian.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court held that appointment of young tribals as SPO are violative of Article 14 as well as Article 21.

The Supreme Court held that 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   possess a better capacity to benefit from training that is appropriate for the duties to be performed in counter insurgency activities, would be to teat unequal as equals. Moreover, in as much as such youngsters, with such low educations qualifications and the consequent scholastic inabilities to benefit from appropriate training, can also not be expected to be effective in engaging in counter-insurgency activities, the policy of employing such youngsters as SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency activities is irrational, arbitrary and capricious.

The Supreme Court observed that Article 21 is violated because notwithstanding the claimed violation on the part of these youngsters to appointment as SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency activities, youngsters with such low level of educational qualifications cannot be expected to understand the dangers of that they are likely to face, the skills needed to the face such dangers and the requirements of necessary judgment while discharging such responsibilities. Further, because of their low level of educational achievements, they will also not be in 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 rigourous training, would to endanger their lives.

The Supreme Court further observed that certainly within the ambit of all those “limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed” also lies respect for dignity of a human being, irrespective of whether he or she is poor, illiterate, less educated and less capable of exercising proper choice. The State has been found to have the positive obligation, pursuant to Article 21 to necessarily undertake those steps that would enhance human dignity and enable the individual to lead a life of at least some dignity. The preamble of  our constitution affirms as the goal of our nation, the promotion of human dignity. The actions of the State in appointing barely literate youngsters, ass SPOs engaged in counterinsurgency activites,  of any kind, against the Maoists, who are incapable, on account of low educational achievements, of learning all the skills , knowledge and analytical tools to perform such a role, and thereby endangering their lives is necessary a denigration of their dignity as human beings.

To employ such ill equipped youngsters as SPOs engaged in counterinsurgency activities including the tasks of identifying Maoists and Non-Maoists and equipping them with firearms, would endanger the lives of others in society. That would be a violation of Article 21 rights of a vast number of people in the society.

That they are paid only an “honorarium” and appointed only for temporary periods and are further violations of Article 14 and Article 21. To pay only an honorarium to those youngster, even though they place themselves in equal danger and in fact even more, than regular police officers, is to denigrate the value of their lives. It can only be justified by  a cynical and indeed an inhuman attitude, that places little or no value on the lives of such youngsters. Further, given the poverty of those youngsters and the feeling of rage and desire for revenge that many suffer from on account of their previous victimization, in a brutal social order, to engage them in activities that endanger their lives and exploit their dehumanized sensibilities, is to violate the dignity of the human life and humanity.

The Supreme Court directed the State of Chattisgarh to cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPO) known as Salva Judum.

___________________________________________________________