Justice Muralidhar’s Non-Elevation to Supreme Court: Legal Luminaries Seek Answers
Prominent figures in the legal community have voiced their concerns over the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision not to promote Justice S. Muralidhar to the apex court. Justice Muralidhar, who recently retired as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, has been lauded for his exemplary service and contributions to the judiciary.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman, former Supreme Court Judge Madan B Lokur, and Senior Advocate & arbitrator Sriram Panchu co-authored an article, posing a direct question:
“What were the grounds for denying Justice Muralidhar his ‘rightful’ place despite such merit on display, along with matchless integrity and probity?”
The article, titled ‘A question for the collegium: Why was Justice S Muralidhar not brought to the Supreme Court?’, underscores the judiciary’s loss of a
“treasured asset, a diamond which should have sparkled on the crown.”
Detailing Justice Muralidhar’s illustrious career, the authors highlighted his significant contributions both as a lawyer and a judge. They referenced his book, Law, Poverty and Legal Aid: Access to Criminal Justice, as a seminal contribution to legal literature. His tenure at the Delhi High Court from 2006 to 2020 was marked by landmark judgments, including the Naz Foundation case that decriminalized consensual homosexuality. They noted,
“What was an impressive bio acquired ‘legendary proportions’ once the judge came to the Delhi high court.”
The jurists also lauded Justice Muralidhar’s transformative impact on the Orissa High Court, introducing innovations such as e-filings, paperless benches, hybrid hearings, and e-libraries. They emphasized that Justice Muralidhar’s bench disposed of 33,322 cases in 31 months, delivering 545 judgments.
The article further inquired:
“Why was S Muralidhar not offered a judgeship on the Supreme Court, especially now when two vacancies exist? And as a subsidiary issue without deflecting from the main one, why was he not even made Chief Justice of the larger and chartered High Court of Madras, a move initiated by the collegium, not acted upon by the government, and not pursued by the collegium?”
In a parallel opinion piece in The Wire, the authors reiterated these concerns, emphasizing Justice Muralidhar’s unmatched record. They pointed out the collegium’s apparent helplessness in the face of government defiance, as evidenced by the delay in Justice Muralidhar’s transfer to the Madras High Court.
Both articles serve as a clarion call for transparency, accountability, and meritocracy in the judicial appointment process. The legal luminaries’ collective voice underscores the need for introspection within the collegium system to ensure that deserving candidates are not sidelined.