New Delhi [India], August 27 (ANI): Senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has backed the stance of 56 retired judges who supported Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the controversy over his remarks on the Salwa Judum verdict.

Rohatgi said he found their position “more appropriate” than that of 18 retired judges who had opposed the Home Minister, stressing that once a judge enters politics, their past judgments can naturally be debated and criticised.

Speaking to ANI, Rohatgi remarked, “If any person enters a political arena, they are under public gaze, and their credentials are subject to debate. There is no gain in saying that the judgment of a judge rendered 20 years ago should not be criticised. Every judgment is open to criticism, including this one. The criticism is of the judgment, and the author of the judgment happens to be in a political arena; hence, obviously, people will talk about it. Why should the 18 judges be more sensitive than the judge himself? As a lawyer, I can say it was a controversial judgment. A politician should have thick skin and be able to face public criticism.”

The statement of support by 56 retired judges–including two former Chief Justices of India and several ex-High Court Chief Justices–asserted that the Home Minister’s comments had been unfairly targeted. They rejected the criticism voiced earlier by 18 retired judges, describing it as “politically motivated” and damaging to judicial neutrality.

“This practice does a great disservice to the institution we once served, as it projects judges as political actors. This erodes the dignity and neutrality that the office of a judicial officer demands,” the signatories wrote.

The Chairman of the All India Bar Association (AIBA) also strongly opposed the statement made by the 18 judges. He underlined that once a judge retires and steps into political life, he cannot expect the same immunity from public scrutiny that comes with judicial office.

“Protecting a retired judge from public criticism after entering politics amounts to demanding a privilege that does not exist,” he said, adding that the Home Minister’s comments were neither personal nor insulting; instead, they should be viewed as a reminder that judges must ensure their pronouncements do not compromise the country’s sovereignty, security, or unity.

The row stems from Amit Shah’s remarks on Justice B. Sudershan Reddy’s 2011 judgment banning the state-supported Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh, a ruling that was widely debated at the time. With Justice Reddy now in politics, Shah’s critics argued his comments undermined judicial independence, while supporters countered that judges in politics must accept public scrutiny of their past decisions. (ANI)