Retired Justice Muralidhar recommended for increasing Supreme Court benches to prevent conflicting rulings and improve judicial consistency. He highlightd the demanding nature of judgeship, emphasizing the limited time for deep contemplation. Muralidhar’s perspective highlighted the complexities faced by judges and the need for structural improvements to support effective decision-making. His insights shed light on the challenges within the legal system and opportunities for enhancement.
New Delhi: Senior Advocate and former Delhi and Orissa High Court judge, Justice Dr. S Muralidhar, expressed the view that the Supreme Court should convene in larger bench compositions to prevent inconsistent legal interpretations. He emphasized that the Court should refrain from revisiting established decisions unless there is significant dissent within the current bench. When asked about conflicting judicial interpretations regarding laws on violence and crimes against women, he highlighted the need for clarity and uniformity in legal rulings.
Read Also:Supreme Court Elevates 56 Lawyers to Senior Advocates, Including 11 Women
Dr. Muralidhar remarked on the distinctive nature of the Indian Supreme Court, stating,
“It has 17 two-judge benches, leading to inevitable differing interpretations. Larger bench formations are necessary to reduce conflicts among benches, and decisions should be revisited only in cases of serious disagreement. Addressing the workload, he highlighted the mental fatigue associated with the demanding cerebral work, noting, The brain is extremely tired, leaving little time for reflection, and increasing the likelihood of mistakes.”
The retired judge delivered the 30th JP Naik Memorial Lecture titled “Time to Introspect, Revisit: 50 Years of the Committee on the Status of Women in India”. During his lecture, he discussed the background and findings of the committee.
Read Also:Justice (Retired) S Murlidhar: Judges do make political choices
Justice Muralidhar advocated for more detailed reports from the National Commission for Women, noting recent reports as lacking in specifics regarding the types of crimes addressed.
He also shared insights into the atmosphere at the Delhi High Court following the 2009 judgment decriminalizing consensual homosexual sex.
The senior lawyer said,
“Shortly after, in our chambers Justice (AP) Shah asked me, ‘Do you think this will make a difference?’ to which I replied, ‘Yes, of course.’ However, no other judge mentioned the judgment to us for the next 3-4 days.” Reflecting on the aftermath, the lawyer added, “Then someone remarked that the two of us are now referred to as ‘gaylords.'”