Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar, urges major reforms in India’s judiciary, highlighting the need for accountability, transparent transfers, and diverse representation on the bench. He critiques the Ayodhya verdict, judicial transfers, and calls for a more rigorous and fair approach in judicial decisions.
Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and editor of the newly released book “Incomplete Justice: The Supreme Court at 75,” has called for major reforms in the Indian judiciary.
In an interview with ‘The Lallantop’ during the launch of his book, Justice Muralidhar criticized current judicial practices, urging for greater accountability, more transparency in judicial transfers, and better diversity on the bench.
He offered sharp observations on legal and administrative matters, raising questions about the functioning of India’s top courts.
Discussing the Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, Justice Muralidhar expressed concern that the Court did not fully explore the possibility of a mediated settlement.
He noted that even though a mediation panel had submitted a “final report” showing that some parties, including the Sunni Central Waqf Board, had reached an agreement, the Court chose to decide the case quickly.
He said, “faith and belief” should not have been the basis for the judgment, arguing that a little more effort could have brought the parties closer to resolution. Justice Muralidhar observed that the Court should have applied the law more rigorously, especially in such a sensitive matter.
Reflecting on his own transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Muralidhar highlighted the suspicious timing of the official notification.
He mentioned that although his transfer was “under process,” the notification came late at night, around 11:35 PM or 11:40 PM, on the same day he presided over hearings connected to the Delhi riots and hate speech, where he had called for action against powerful individuals.
He stated, “judges are typically not informed of the actual reasons for their transfers,” calling it a “flaw or lacuna in the system” that violates natural justice. He also referenced Justice Madan B. Lokur’s similar concerns about executive influence on judicial transfers.
Justice Muralidhar strongly urged for a better system to handle disciplinary issues among High Court and Supreme Court judges.
He explained that the current system relies mostly on impeachment for removal, which does not provide effective ways to discipline judges for “lesser misdemeanors.”
Criticizing the practice of “punishment postings,” where judges are transferred as a form of discipline, he called it a “lazy way” of dealing with such situations.
Addressing the case of Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Muralidhar raised serious concerns. In this case, a large amount of cash was reportedly found in Varma’s outhouse, yet no First Information Report (FIR) was registered.
He questioned the lack of cooperation from Delhi Police, emphasizing that proper investigation, including forensic analysis, cannot happen without police support.
Justice Muralidhar highlighted the “double standard” in how such cases are handled, noting that while video footage publicizes allegations against judges, sexual harassment complaints against judges are often kept confidential.
Justice Muralidhar also highlighted the need for broader exposure and diversity on the bench. Agreeing with journalist P. Sainath, he said that the Supreme Court may not fully understand the realities of rural India.
He explained that many judges come from backgrounds where they have limited exposure to the challenges faced by rural and marginalized communities, often due to factors like income criteria for judicial appointments.
He stressed,
“judges in constitutional courts deal with a wide array of issues and therefore require diverse exposure.”
On the use of criminal contempt, Justice Muralidhar remarked that the judiciary has “regressed,” applying it too often compared to other countries.
He urged judges to have “broad shoulders” and a “sense of humor” to handle criticism instead of reacting to every minor public comment.
ALSO READ: TVK Leaders Seek Anticipatory Bail, Say “Insufficient Police” Caused Karur Rally Stampede
Explaining the title of his book, “Incomplete Justice,” Justice Muralidhar linked it to Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for “doing complete justice.”
He suggested that despite this authority, judicial outcomes are often seen as incomplete or sometimes create additional burdens for litigants.
Justice S. Muralidhar’s observations in his book and interview highlight pressing concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness within the Indian judiciary.
His call for reforms, greater diversity, and responsible judicial conduct adds to ongoing debates about improving the legal system and strengthening public trust in India’s courts.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual speakers (Justice S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, and Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “Lawchakra” or its affiliates.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Judiciary
