Author:- Sanjay Kannan B, a law student at Bharath University.

Edited By:- Rutvij Vyas, a Law student at faculty of Law, GLS University.

1. ABSTRACT 

In this Case Analysis of Nandini Sundar vs the State of Chhattisgarh. In June 2005 the satisfied government created Salva Judas projecting it as a particular people’s woman to take care of the law-and-order situation in the Naxalite-prone Dantewada district its compressors of about 6500 special police officers appointed by the state government with financial support from the central government

In May 2006 Nandini Sundar professor of sociology University of Delhi along with Aadhar civil rights activities  under look the fact-finding machine to shuttle a spot of interdependencies initiative  and  Complaints against the activists of Salwa judum,  Sundar and other than approached various commissions and Ministries and the allotted them about the Human Rights violation by the Selva judam  filing to Alicante and effective response from them they approach the supreme court with the repetition in the year of 2007

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Selva judam policy violated both Article 14 write equality before the law and Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty of those employed as a special police officer as well as the local civilians it ordered the particular state government to disorder special police officers and Desire from using them to counter social activities

Keywords: Supreme Court of India, Writ, Human rights, The Constitution of India:

2. CASE DETAILS

3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

It’s quite a remote place breathing near to get to  you have to take the petitioner is used to keep going on trying to collect affidavits if there was news that there has been a “major encounter are killing” then I try to go there and get information by the petitioner the police and parametric forces have made it difficult for anybody to the independent fact findings basically was a state-sponsored vigilant operation the government for people to come to rallies and then it took them forcefully in processing to other villages and burned those villages.

And it also recures villages as a” special police officer so you give young people arms and let them terrorism losses that went around burning a lot of villages killing people on raping women all of this was with complete Government support fundamental violation”. in the right to life Ande quality before the law the other thing that the go-to pointed out in its judgements,

In 2011 when based on public interest litigations the petitioner was filed that it was also a violation of the right to equality after special Police officers under special police aur sab under Paramilitary forces the united youngsters and them to  fight the Naxalite put them at risk Tak Human Rights violations generally in this country people are also interested that the higher level of impunity as a fact of 2 years in the national press 5 to 10 articles has been published commissions take noted by NHRC.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

• Procedural Background of the Case Petitioner – Nandini Sundar filed a writ petition directly to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2006 and the hearing was late and got human rights violation in the year 2006 same month and repetition in the year 2007 and judgement in 2011.

2. Factual Background of the Case

1. •  In May 2006 Nandini Sundar professor of the Sociology University of Delhi along with Aadhar civil rights activities, under look the fact-finding machine to shuttle a spot of interdependencies initiative and wearied Complaints against the activist of Salwa judum,  Sundar and others then approached various commissions and Ministries and the allotted them about the Human Rights violation by the Selva judam filing to Alicante and effective response from them they approach the supreme court with the repetition in the year of 2007.

5. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

•   Whether the Union of India has appointed a Special Police Officers (SPOs) for each state to control law and order Security Related Expenditure (SRE) Scheme.
•   Whether the recruitment of SPOs is firing of camp villagers by Naxals, total 41 attacks by Maoists between 2005 and 2011 result in 47 and 37 injuries. In place of Dantewada, there were 24 attacks, 37, and 26 injuries.
•  whether Tribal youths joined in the SPO ranks is safeguard to their families and villages in violent assaults. it results a human rights violation.

6. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

•   The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the term of a proper challenge in terms of access ability. A special way of must be taken to reach of particular location. The petitioner is known for “proper collecting affidavits”.
•  Whenever there are a north east west south of a major encounter or killings”, efforts are made to getting information from the petitioner. Independent fact-finding has become increasingly difficult due to the actions of the police and paramilitary forces. Essentially, it was a government-sanctioned vigilante operation aimed at forcing people to attend rallies, following which they were forcibly taken to other villages that were subsequently set ablaze. The location is quite remote, “making it challenging to reach. In order to access the area, one must take a specific route.
•  The petitioner is accustomed to persistently attempting to gather affidavits” Upon hearing news of a significant encounter or killings, I think that to obtain information from the petitioner. The police and paramilitary forces have made it exceedingly difficult for independent fact-finding.

A)   RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that The State of Chhattisgarh astride s that it only getting of tribal youth who “willingly volunteer for such roles. It further states that many of these young individuals are stepping up due to personal experts of Naxal violence affecting them or their families, or out of a delegation to protect their homes from Naxal attacks.

 It is more difficult for too compared how, even if the get made by the State of Chhattisgarh are impartment”. these scenes a world of  finalized  the story of  responsibility of the state or allied the human rights concerns surrounding the appointment of these young individuals as SPOs.

7. RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• •                CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 ARTICLE 14, 15, 19, 21
  •                INDIAN POLICE 1876

8. JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

YES, BINDING TO ALL COURTS WITH IN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA AND OPINION GIVEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

9. CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The State of Chhattisgarh asserts that it only hires tribal youth who willingly volunteer for such roles. It further states that many of these young individuals are stepping up due to personal experiences of Naxal violence affecting them or their families, or out of a desire to protect their homes from Naxal attacks.

It is difficult for us to comprehend how, even if the claims made by the State of Chhattisgarh are accurate, these circumstances would diminish the moral responsibility of the state or alleviate the human rights concerns surrounding the appointment of these young individuals as SPOs and grand proper compensation to the victims and affected public in the state.

10. REFERENCES

• • Important Cases Referred
  • GVK Industries vs ITO.
  • Important Statutes Referred:- 
  • H.C. 3451/02, 56(3) P.D., also cited in Aharon Barak: “The Judge in a Democracy” (Princeton University Press, 2003)