The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved verdict on the petition for a direction to the Chhattisgarh government to disband and disarm Special Police Officers and to set up a mechanism for relief and rehabilitation of victims of violence in the State.
A Bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar reserved verdict at the conclusion of arguments from senior counsel Ashok Desai, appearing for social anthropologist Nandini Sundar and others, senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani for the State and Additional Solicitor-General Harin Raval for the Centre.
Mr. Desai submitted to the court that besides providing immediate relief to the victims, SPOs should be disbanded and disarmed. He said the State must condemn all forms of civilian violence, whether Salwa Judum, Naxalite or SPOs. He suggested that a monitoring committee be set up for rehabilitation of people in the villages of Tadmetla, Timapuram and Morpalli.
He said: “The SPOs are not there to provide a source of employment to the locals. You are arming them and giving them extraordinary powers. You can give them some other employment. The Chhattisgarh Act, which was passed in democratic India, is actually more regressive than the 1861 colonial act.”
Need for SPOs
Mr. Krishnamani justified the role of SPOs and said historically they had played a very useful role. Justice Reddy remarked, “Yes, historically, from the days of the British.” Mr. Krishnamani said “if the SPOs are to be disbanded in one State, they must be disbanded in all States. If the SPOs are not armed, they will be killed. We need SPOs because they are locals, they know the language and can identify Maoists.”
Justice Nijjar intervened and said: “That is precisely our concern – that they are from the same population and this is a form of divide and rule.”
When Justice Reddy asked counsel, “Is it written on someone's forehead that he/she is a Maoist?,” Mr. Krishnamani said “they know because they are former Maoists themselves.”
When Mr. Krishnamani alleged that the petitioners were Maoist supporters, Justice Reddy, who was shocked at the insinuation asked counsel: “Are you saying [petitioners] Ram Guha, Nandini Sundar, Sarma, Swami Agnivesh are Maoists. That is exactly the problem. Don't divide society into pro and anti-naxalite supporters. Suppose if a Naxal comes to court and is shot dead at the gates, and people protest at this procedure, will they become Maoists. Once an organisation is declared a terrorist or banned organisation is Article 21 of the Constitution [right to life and liberty] suspended?”
The Centre's standing counsel Atul Jha said, “the State needs 70 battalions but currently it has only 40 and so they need SPOs.” Justice Nijjar asked counsel, “So if you only have 50 per cent strength you should ask for more battalions, not arm SPOs. If they are given training equivalent to a constable, what is the advantage in calling them SPOs?
When Justice Reddy asked him whether any rules had been framed under the Police Act, he said “No, the matter is pending before the police reforms commission.”
