Judiciary

Muralidhar cited the Supreme Court’s inaction on the suo motu contempt petition against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, filed after the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. “It was not taken up for 22 years. And then when it was listed before Justice (Sanjay) Kaul it was said; why flog a dead horse. This is institutional amnesia, which in my view is unforgivable, of an act which the Supreme Court found was an egregious crime,” he said.

'Unforgivable Institutional Amnesia': Retired HC Judge Slams Judiciary's Handling of Communal Disputes - The Wire 

He also cited the Ayodhya judgment of 2019, arguing that the Court went beyond the scope of the suits before it.

“No one had asked for the construction of a temple. Directions under Article 142 were issued; no one asked for it, no legal basis, no prayer, hence no opposition. No central government or Hindu group lawyer had asked for it,” he said. The ruling, he added, “was completely outside the realm of the suits” and its fallout continues to affect the courts.

11/09/2025

Referring indirectly to former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, widely regarded as the Ayodhya verdict’s author, he observed: “It was an author-less judgment but the author himself said he consulted the deity before (delivering) it,” reported Indian Express.

 In an unprecedented show of solidarity with Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, the Opposition’s candidate for Vice President, 18 former judges of the Supreme Court and various high courts have issued a statement criticising Union home minister Amit Shah’s recent attack on him and the Supreme Court for the 2011 Salwa Judum judgment outlawing Chhattisgarh’s use of armed vigilantes against the Naxalite insurgency.

Don’t Distort SC's Salwa Judum Ruling or Resort to Name Calling, Former Judges Tell Amit Shah - The Wire

The 2011 judgment was delivered by Justice Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar, who has since died. The judgment itself came as part of a gradual build-up of judicial orders by different benches of the Supreme Court which heard a PIL filed by Nandini Sundar and others in 2007 seeking justice for the adivasi victims of human rights violations being committed by the vigilante Salwa Judum squads.

25/08/2025

Rahul Gandhi सच्चे देशभक्त हैं या नहीं ये कौन तय करेगा ?' कानून के जानकारों से समझिए   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Nau68I8zw    
 Kapil Sibal , Justice Madan Lokur, and Salman Khurshid, Who decides who is a true patriot? The conversation spans recent judicial remarks, political controversies, the limits of free speech, and the responsibility of leaders to ask tough questions. Through real-life anecdotes, legal insights, and thought-provoking reflections, the episode challenges viewers to rethink the meaning of nationalism, democracy, and dissent in today’s India. 

The independence of the judiciary and the profession of lawyers is being slowly but surely compromised.

From Bench to Bar, the Executive Tightens Its Grip on Justice - The Wire 

The political executive has been stalling the appointment of judges by disregarding the recommendations made by the collegium of judges of the Supreme Court (no less). There are well-known, documented cases of the political executive taking no action on recommendations made by the collegium of judges, rendering the agreed Memorandum of Procedure nothing but a scrap of paper. Where appointments are made, they are delayed, thereby adversely impacting the seniority of some judges while favouring others. For the present purposes, it is not necessary to revisit these lanes and bye-lanes.

Dominance of the judiciary by the political executive has delayed justice delivery with the result that violent crimes appear to have increased. These are reported daily in newspapers, and TV channels hype up these cases and convict the suspects even before the police complete their investigation. So much for speedy justice.

by Madan B. Lokur

05/07/2025