“At Least Two Judges Never Signed Such A Document…”: Journalist’s Claim Over 56 Judges Defended Amit Shah
In a startling revelation, Siddharth Varadarajan, a founding editor of The Wire, has claimed that at least two of the 56 retired judges reported to have signed a statement defending Union Home Minister and BJP leader Amit Shah did not, in fact, endorse the document. The statement, issued on August 26, 2025, countered criticism from 18 former judges who had defended retired Supreme Court Justice B Sudershan Reddy against Shah’s remarks. Varadarajan’s claim raises questions about the authenticity of the widely reported judicial support for Shah and highlights tensions within India’s judicial and political spheres amid the campaigning for the upcoming Vice Presidential elections in which Justice Reddy is a candidate pitted by the Opposition INDIA bloc.
The controversy stems from Shah’s recent comments in Kerala, where he accused Justice Reddy of “supporting Naxalism” through his 2011 Salwa Judum verdict. The ruling had declared state-sponsored militias in Chhattisgarh unconstitutional, a decision Shah claimed hindered efforts to combat Maoism. In response, 18 former judges, including Supreme Court Justices Kurien Joseph and Madan B Lokur, issued a letter on August 25, condemning Shah’s remarks as a “prejudicial misinterpretation” of the verdict, arguing that such statements undermine judicial integrity.
The following day, a group of 56 retired judges – reportedly including former Chief Justices of India P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi (who is also a BJP MP in the Rajya Sabha) – released a counter-statement. They accused the 18 judges of cloaking “political partisanship” under the guise of judicial independence, arguing that Reddy, by entering the political arena as a candidate, should face scrutiny like any other politician. The statement urged former judges to refrain from issuing “politically motivated” remarks, warning that such actions tarnish the judiciary’s reputation and erode its neutrality.
However, Varadarajan’s post on X casts doubt on the legitimacy of the 56-judge statement. He revealed that Justice S. Raveendran, a former Supreme Court judge, explicitly denied consenting to the inclusion of his name. Similarly, Justice Suresh Kaith, former Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, told Varadarajan at a book launch in Delhi that he had not signed any such document and was unaware of how his name appeared on the list. These claims suggest potential discrepancies in the reported support for Shah, raising questions about whether other judges listed may also have been included without consent.
The 18 judges’ letter had called for restraint, particularly given Reddy’s candidacy for the Vice-Presidential election, urging respect for the office and warning against “name-calling.” Reddy himself, in an interview with NDTV, rejected Shah’s allegations, clarifying that the Salwa Judum judgment did not support Maoism and questioning why it had not been challenged if it was flawed. He advocated for a “decent and respectable” electoral contest, free of personal attacks.
The controversy has sparked debate about judicial independence and the role of retired judges in political discourse. While the 56 judges’ statement argued that Reddy’s entry into politics opens him to criticism, the 18 judges countered that misrepresenting judicial verdicts risks undermining public trust in the judiciary.
