Question:medium

Supreme Court recently declared 'Salva Judum' unconstitutional. What is 'Salva Judum'?

Show Hint

It came out of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh in 2005, and its members were enrolled as Special Police Officers and given guns by the state.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • A terrorist outfit
  • An armed civilian group formed to combat Maoists
  • A money-chain business
  • Custom of killing a girl for inter-caste marriage in the name of honour
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Start from the case.
The ruling meant here is Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 5 July 2011 by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar.
The petition challenged Chhattisgarh's practice of arming tribal youth to fight Naxalites.
That challenge tells you at once that Salva Judum was something the state had created, not something working against it.

Step 2: Look at how it was built.
Salva Judum began in Dantewada in 2005, in the heart of Chhattisgarh's Maoist belt.
Local tribal youths were enrolled as Special Police Officers under the Chhattisgarh Police Act.
They were handed firearms and paid a small honorarium of a few thousand rupees a month.
They were then used in operations against the Maoists, with barely any training.
So the plain description is: an armed civilian group set up to fight Maoists.

Step 3: See what the Court objected to.
The Court said arming barely trained youngsters and pushing them into an armed conflict put their own lives at risk, offending Article 21.
It also held the scheme arbitrary under Article 14.
Security is the state's own responsibility and cannot be outsourced to villagers, said the Bench.
It ordered the SPOs disarmed and the group disbanded, and asked the CBI to look into related violence.

Step 4: Knock out the wrong options.
"A terrorist outfit" is backwards. The state funded and armed this group, and the Maoists were its target.
"A money-chain business" describes a ponzi or chit fund scheme and has no link to this at all.
"Custom of killing a girl for inter-caste marriage" is honour killing, an entirely different issue.

Final Answer:
Option (B) is correct.
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws


Questions Asked in CLAT exam