NEW DELHI—The Supreme Court told the government of an Indian state to immediately cease recruiting and using young tribal villagers as ad hoc police officers to help battle a Maoist insurgency, in a judgment that could have far-reaching ramifications for how India deals with civil strife.
India is facing a violent Maoist rebellion in its central and eastern belt. Chhattisgarh, a state at the heart of this conflict, has recruited "special police officers" in increasing numbers in recent years to help fight the rebels.
These temporary recruits, paid for in large part by the federal government, aren't part of the regular police and have been accused by villagers in the state of wide-ranging human-rights violations. The court has also ordered the federal government to stop paying for such recruits for use against left-wing extremists in other states as well.
Policemen lay the Indian flag over the coffins of comrades they suspect were killed by Maoist rebels, in Raipur, in the eastern Indian state of Chattisgarh, on May 24, 2011. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
"This case represents a yawning gap between the promise of principled exercise of power in a constitutional democracy, and the reality of the situation in Chhattisgarh," said the court, in an order written by a two-judge bench. "It is now clear to us, as alleged by the petitioners, that thousands of tribal youth are being appointed by the State of Chhattisgarh, with the consent of the Union of India, to engage in armed conflict with the Maoists."
The judges said the state violated the Indian Constitution's guarantees of life and personal liberty by both putting these young people at grave personal risk, and by "endangering others" since the often uneducated and untrained youngsters were ill-equipped to fight an insurgency.
The judges said they were dismayed by the Chhattisgarh government's contention that "the only option for the state was to rule with an iron fist, establish a social order in which every person is to be treated as suspect, and anyone speaking for human rights of citizens to be deemed as suspect, and a Maoist."
Baijendra Kumar, a spokesman for the Chhattisgarh government, said the state hasn't yet studied the judgment. "We will consult legal experts and then take appropriate action," he said. "We respect the judicial system in India."
India's home ministry, which pays 80% of the monthly $75 wage of the special police officers, had no comment.
Violence in Chhattisgarh has ratcheted up in the last decade as Maoist fighters began moving there from neighboring Andhra Pradesh state, which set up a new paramilitary force in 1989 to fight the left-wing rebels.
In 2005, Chhattisgarh saw the formation of an anti-Maoist group known as Salwa Judum, which the local government described as a spontaneous civilian backlash, while human rights activists said it was state-supported.
Violence spiraled as the Salwa Judum attacked villages believed to support the Maoists, in turn provoking deadly retaliation from the rebels. The state government moved large swathes of people from villages to camps, and recruited the special police officers to guard them from rebel attacks.
These village recruits also accompanied security forces on scouting operations against the rebels. The rebels, who are also known as Naxalites, claim they are fighting for the rights of tribal villagers who stand to be displaced in the face of increased mining and industrial projects in the mineral-rich state.
According to figures provided to the court by Chhattisgarh, the state had appointed 6,500 special police officers by March this year, more than double the number on its rolls a year ago.
The home ministry's latest annual report, for the year to March 31, said funding had been approved for 12,000 SPOs in five states where the Maoists are active.
SPOs are also used in other insurgency-prone areas, such as Jammu and Kashmir, and India's Northeast.
These operations may also be affected by the court's decision.
The court order came in response to several cases, including a public interest litigation filed in 2007 by anthropologist Nandini Sundar and historian Ramachandra Guha, who are related, and former civil servant E.A.S. Sharma.
The suit alleged that human rights violations were taking place in the state and accused the state of promoting vigilantism.
The court agreed with this assessment and called on the state to prevent the activities of vigilante groups such as the Salwa Judum and to investigate allegations of human rights violations by them.
The court also warned that the Indian government was on the wrong track with its use of force to deal with the insurgency. The court said grievances related to the extraction of natural resources were driving the rebellion and likened what it had heard about Chhattisgarh in the course of arguments to the state of affairs portrayed the Joseph Conrad novel "Heart of Darkness," about mercenary colonialism in Africa.
"For the first time, an Indian court has very bravely engaged what fuels Maoist violence and what must be the role of the state in combating it," said Menaka Guruswamy, one of the lawyers for the public interest litigation. "The most important thing is that the court said that even in cases of violence, we will stand up for the Constitution."
Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, welcomed the judgment but said that the divisions sown among village communities by the state's use of local recruits will linger even once they are discharged from their duties and sent home.
"What happens to them next? Will they be told to go back to their village where they will then be attacked by Maoists?" she asked.