The nomination of Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy as the joint candidate of the INDIA bloc for the Vice President of India has stirred both admiration and controversy. While many hail him as a distinguished jurist and a champion of constitutional values, others question the political implications and past controversies surrounding his career.
The INDIA bloc has framed the election as an “ideological battle”—between constitutionalism and what it describes as authoritarian tendencies under the BJP-RSS regime. Reddy’s past statements criticizing the erosion of democratic institutions and the autonomy of the Election Commission further reinforce this narrative.
Here’s a comprehensive look at why his candidacy is seen as contentious.
- Judicial Legacy and Ideological Symbolism – Justice Reddy, a retired Supreme Court judge, is best known for landmark rulings such as the disbanding of the Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh, which he deemed unconstitutional and unethical1. His judgments often emphasized social justice, constitutional accountability, and protection of fundamental rights.
However, it has also attracted criticism, particularly from those who viewed the militia as a necessary tool in counter-insurgency operations against Maoist rebels. Critics, including some political leaders and security experts, argued that the ban weakened the state’s ability to combat Maoist violence effectively.
Some felt the court was idealistic and failed to appreciate the complexities of insurgency in tribal areas, where conventional policing was often ineffective. The decision was seen by some as judicial overreach into executive policy, especially since the militia had backing from both the state and central governments at the time
- Political Strategy and Regional Pressure – Reddy’s nomination is also a strategic move aimed at pressuring regional allies of the NDA. Hailing from Andhra Pradesh, his candidacy puts the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key NDA ally, in a difficult position. Supporting a candidate from their own state could be politically advantageous, but doing so would mean defying the central alliance.
This regional dynamic also affects other parties like the YSR Congress and the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), who now face pressure to clarify their stance. The INDIA bloc’s choice is seen as a tactical effort to exploit regional loyalties and potentially fracture the NDA’s unity.
- Past Controversies and Resignations – Despite his judicial accomplishments, Justice Reddy’s career has not been without controversy. In 2013, he was appointed as Goa’s first Lokayukta but resigned just seven months later, citing personal reasons. His appointment was challenged in court by activist Aires Rodrigues, who alleged procedural irregularities and lack of transparency. Although the petition was dismissed, the episode left a blemish on his otherwise respected career.
Additionally, his role in various government-appointed committees—such as overseeing mining impact zones in Karnataka and leading Telangana’s caste survey analysis—has brought him into proximity with political figures, raising questions about his neutrality.
- Electoral Realities and Symbolic Resistance – Numerically, the NDA holds a clear advantage in the electoral college, with over 420 MPs compared to the INDIA bloc’s roughly 300 5. This makes Reddy’s victory unlikely. However, the opposition sees his candidacy as a symbolic act of resistance—a way to challenge the BJP’s ideological dominance and assert constitutional values.
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge described Reddy as a “poor man’s judge” and a “consistent and courageous champion of justice,” emphasizing that the election is not just about numbers but about defending the soul of Indian democracy.
- Public Perception and Media Narrative – While many in the legal and academic circles admire Reddy’s commitment to justice and constitutionalism, critics argue that his nomination politicizes the judiciary. The move to field a retired judge in a high-stakes political contest blurs the lines between judicial impartiality and political activism.
Moreover, some view the INDIA bloc’s decision as a calculated attempt to provoke ideological debates rather than genuinely contest the Vice Presidency. This has led to polarized opinions in media and political discourse.
Conclusion
Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy’s candidacy for Vice President is controversial not because of any scandalous personal conduct, but due to the broader political and ideological implications it carries. His judicial legacy, regional identity, and past controversies make him a complex figure—one who embodies both the aspirations and the strategic calculations of the opposition. Whether he wins or not, his nomination has already reshaped the narrative of the 2025 Vice Presidential election.
