‘Dismissed by Congress as yes man’—BJP attacks Justice Reddy

New Delhi: As the race for the Vice President’s post begins to heat up, the BJP has launched a scathing attack on the INDIA bloc’s nominee former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) B. Sudershan Reddy, accusing him of compromising national security, supporting Naxal insurgency and sympathising with anti-national elements.

Justice Reddy, who served as a Supreme Court judge until his retirement in 2011, has come under harsh BJP criticism even before he and NDA nominee CP Radhakrishnan formally launch their campaign for the September 9 vice presidential poll. 

In a caustic X post, BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the vice presidential choice of the “INDI Alliance” has  exposed its hypocrisy and bankruptcy “yet again”. 

“Congress has fielded B. Sudershan Reddy as its Vice-Presidential nominee — a man whose record is marred by dangerous judgments, anti-national sympathies, and shameless opportunism,” he said. “Once dismissed by Congress itself as a yes-man, today paraded as a hero.” 

“As SC judge, struck down Salwa Judum — crippling India’s fight against Naxals at peak Maoist violence. Petitioned against India’s arms exports to Israel — undermining India’s global partnerships. Shielded Congress in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy cover-up, refusing to reopen Anderson’s escape case. Headed Telangana caste census riddled with flaws and under representation of OBCsIn 2013, Congress & NCP black-flagged his Lokayukta appointment, branding him a puppet. In 2025, the same man is now their ‘messiah’!”

Bhandari then referred to the Congress’s criticism of the NDA government for nominating Justice (retd) Ranjan Gogoi to Rajya Sabha after he demitted office as the 46th Chief Justice of India.

“They attacked Justice Gogoi for joining RS, but fielded their own retired judge for VP. This election is not just about one candidate, it’s about whether India’s highest offices will reflect national resolve or Congress’s dirty compromise on National Security!” Bhandari said. 

The BJP also brought up Justice (retd) Reddy’s role in the Bhopal gas tragedy litigation. In 2011, as part of a five-judge Supreme Court bench led by then chief justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Reddy rejected the CBI’s curative petition seeking a retrial and harsher punishment for Union Carbide executives. 

The petition was filed after public outrage over the lenient two-year sentences handed down in 2010 to seven former employees of Union Carbide.

The bench held that the CBI had not provided a convincing explanation for reopening the case. The BJP has consistently accused former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and then-MP Arjun Singh of facilitating the escape from India of then chair and CEO of Union Carbide Warren Anderson in 1984.

In another criticism, BJP leaders pointed out Justice Reddy’s signing a petition last year, along with 24 other eminent personalities, urging the defence ministry to halt arms exports to Israel during the Gaza conflict.

Former Supreme Court judge B. Sudarshan Reddy, now put forward by the I.N.D.I Alliance for the Vice President’s office, is remembered for a judgment that weakened India’s fight against Naxalism.

On 5 July 2011, Justice Reddy delivered the verdict in the Salwa Judum case —… https://t.co/Ti7o9RokXG

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) August 19, 2025

BJP IT Cell chief and West Bengal in-charge Amit Malviya criticised him for his 2011 verdict in the Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh case. The ruling struck down the state’s policy of arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) under the Salwa Judum movement, declaring it unconstitutional.

“The ruling came on a petition spearheaded by Nandini Sundar, a Delhi University professor long accused of proximity to Naxal groups and even named in a murder FIR in Bastar (later dropped). She is also the wife of Sidharth Varadarajan, the Left-leaning editor of The Wire. Thus, the judgment was seen not just as a blow to a state government’s counter-insurgency strategy, but as an instance of judicial sympathy for those aligned with the Maoist cause,” he said in an X post. 

“At a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly called for the dismantling of Naxalism root and branch, the I.N.D.I Alliance has chosen to put up a nominee whose legacy carries the taint of siding with those who enabled the insurgency,” he said, billing the vice presidential election as an ideological battle between “national duty and those who, by word and deed, have shown sympathy for India’s enemies”.  

“This contest is not merely about filling a constitutional post. It is about whether India’s highest offices will reflect the spirit of national resolve against violent extremism, or relapse into the ideological compromises of the past,” he said. 

Also Read: In INDIA bloc’s choice for V-P candidate, a bid to wage ‘ideological battle’, put NDA allies in a spot

Past BJP praise for Justice Reddy

Despite the current attacks, the BJP had earlier praised Justice Reddy for his 2011 landmark judgment on black money. Before his retirement, a bench headed by Justice Reddy and Justice (retd) S.S. Nijjar had pulled up the UPA government for not showing seriousness in bringing back black money kept in bank accounts abroad. It had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Then BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar had called it a “slap in the face of the UPA government,” saying the court had exposed the Congress-led Centre’s unwillingness to act against corruption.

“We welcome the Supreme Court decision to appoint a SIT on the Black money issue. This decision has fully exposed the government and the Congress. The government does not want to take any tough and honest measures to check corruption and black money. This decision is a slap in the face of the government,” he had said. 

“This decision is proof that even the court does not trust the government’s intentions on tackling corruption,” he said.

Before the judgment came, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani, who had made black money a central issue in the 2009 Lok Sabha campaign, wrote a blog saying the top court will “earn the lasting gratitude of the Indian people by forcing the government to bring back all this wealth. Hoping the apex court will bring back black money slashed abroad.”

“The country expects the Supreme Court to pursue this matter to its logical end. USD 462 billion is a huge amount that can bring about a miraculous metamorphosis in Indian conditions,” Advani had said, referring to the admonishment of the apex court to the government for not disclosing the names of people whose money is stashed abroad. 

The black money petitions were filed by Ram Jethmalani and others. Hearing the case, justices Reddy and Nijjar asked then solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, “What is the difficulty in disclosing information. What is the privilege you are claiming for not disclosing information about those who have money deposited in foreign bank?”

Narendra Modi, then the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, ran his successful 2014 Lok Sabha poll campaign around the issue of black money and corruption. After taking over as prime minister, Modi constituted an SIT on black money as his Cabinet’s first decision

“There was an attempt to save someone that is why the UPA did not constitute an SIT,” the PM would later tell Rajya Sabha.

Appointed as Lokayukta by Goa govt 

Amid the nationwide anti-corruption sentiment against the UPA government, fuelled by talks around the alleged coal scam, 2G scam and the Anna Hazare movement, then BJP-ruled Goa, led by chief minister Manohar Parrikar, appointed Justice B. Sudershan Reddy as the state’s first Lokayukta in March 2013.

But, when Justice Reddy was being sworn in as the Goa Lokayukta, opposition MLAs reportedly remained absent. While they did not formally boycott the ceremony, opposition accused Justice Reddy of being a “yes man” of Parrikar.

In 2010, an impeachment motion was moved against Calcutta High Court Judge Justice Soumitra Sen after a Supreme Court inquiry committee and Rajya Sabha appointed panel, also including Justice Reddy, concluded that Justice Sen had committed “misconduct” and should be held accountable.

The BJP supported both the committee’s findings and the impeachment motion.

During the debate on the motion in 2011, Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley said in Rajya Sabha, “Sen had misled the Judges Inquiry Committee, and even the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday during his defence. He is unfit to be in the office of a Judge. The defence of Justice Sen has thus to be rejected.”

“A judge is like Caesar’s wife. He must be beyond suspicion. Caesar divorced his wife merely on the basis of suspicion. Those who occupy high offices must live through the scrutiny of highest standards of probity. A judge must be unsuspectable”.

(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)

Also Read: Tamil Nadu’s Ajatshatru, risen from RSS—the many faces of CP Radhakrishnan & why BJP’s banking on him