Judiciary
क्या बिना न्यायिक सुधार भारत विकसित बन सकता है?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLOvqsbiGMw Mahan Bharat
This video discusses:
✅ The flaws in India’s judicial system
✅ The urgent need for “Justice Within Year, Justice For All”
✅ How timely justice can reduce corruption, fraud, and social unrest
✅ Reforms in court procedures, holidays, and language policies
✅ Why judicial reforms are essential for India to truly develop
If the Supreme Court acts decisively and implements reforms, India could see faster justice, reduced corruption, and a stronger economy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- From Bench to Bar, the Executive Tightens Its Grip on Justice
- ‘Subjecting advocate in a case to beck and call of investigating agency untenable’: SC slams practice of investigation agencies summoning lawyers, notes threat to justice administration
- In a first, SC releases list disclosing proposed HC judges’ ties to sitting & former judges
- Supreme Court Publishes Asset Declarations of Judges, Detailed Info About Judicial Appointments
- Accused of Hate Speech, BJP Links, SC Recommends Justice Gowri as Permanent Judge at Madras HC