Back
Justice Muralidhar Urges Repeal of UAPA, PMLA, Detention Laws; Gen Z Protests Show Democratic Resilience
In a powerful address that resonated deeply with the legal community, Senior Advocate and former Chief Justice delivered a sweeping critique of India's current legal landscape while offering a vision for the nation’s future. Speaking at the 28th DS Borker Memorial Lecture on ‘My Vision of India’, Justice Muralidhar praised the recent Gen Z-led protests at New Delhi's Jantar Mantar as a resounding affirmation of democratic values. He simultaneously called for the repeal of what he described as “,” including the and the , and urged an end to the .
The former judge’s comments arrive at a time when India’s youth are increasingly vocal in challenging governmental authority and structural inequities. According to Justice Muralidhar, the protests that took place during the week of demonstrated that young Indians are not only undeterred by political propaganda but also immune to labels such as “,” which he said are used to demonize dissent. “The recent protests by Gen-Z assure us that democracy in India will not be allowed to die,” he asserted, “and that people will turn to the to safeguard and preserve this country's future.”
A Vision for : Safeguarding Dissent and Personal Freedoms
Justice Muralidhar’s lecture outlined a constitutional and legal roadmap for India in —a century after independence. Central to his vision was the principle that law should never be weaponized against critics of those in power. “The India of would be better served if the law of today does not permit criminalising honest criticism of a government or of those running it, or of their being lampooned in cartoons or joked about by stand-up comedians,” he observed. This statement hits at the heart of ongoing debates over the limits of free speech and the misuse of and .
He also strongly condemned the use of criminal law against peaceful protesters. “The India of would be better served if the government of the day stops to punish those who peacefully protest about the denial of basic rights,” he said, adding that such actions should not be framed as “.” This critique is particularly relevant in the context of high-profile crackdowns on student protests, environmental activists, and civil society groups under charges of sedition and under the UAPA.
Another bold element of his vision was the protection of in matters of marriage and cohabitation. He took direct aim at the series of uniform civil code (UCC) legislations passed by some BJP-ruled states, which he said use the law to “target a group for what they wear and what they eat.” His remarks underscore growing judicial concern over the potential for UCC laws to infringe upon and .
Cutting Through the Machinery of Delay and Injustice
Justice Muralidhar did not limit his critique to substantive criminal law; he turned his attention to the very machinery of the judiciary itself. He lamented the , asking how it could take four years for the judiciary to decide the of reducing a state to a Union Territory, or six years to resolve the legality of demonetisation and electoral bonds. These delays, he argued, erode public trust and deny litigants timely relief.
He questioned the efficacy of simply reassigning existing judges to , particularly for cases involving paper-leak exam scandals, warning that without a comprehensive before legislating, the system would remain clogged. As an example, he cited the amendment that criminalised cheque bouncing under . That single provision, he noted, now accounts for approximately 40 lakh pending cases—nearly 40% of all cases in .
On the topic of court administration, he called for greater digitisation of court records to prevent delays caused by missing case files. He also objected to archaic court protocols and forms of address such as “Your Lordship,” which he described as remnants of “patriarchy” and “feudalism.” Instead, he advocated for a more litigant-focused judicial system that respects the dignity of all parties.
Reimagining the Bar and the Role of the Lawyer
Justice Muralidhar also stressed the need for an and a reformed . He argued that the Bar Council must be democratic and insulated from both executive and judicial interference. His remarks serve as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between the bar, the bench, and the executive, especially in the context of recent moves to regulate legal education and the profession through parliamentary amendments.
Legal and Social Implications
Justice Muralidhar’s speech is not merely a critique—it is a clarion call for a fundamental rethinking of India’s legal architecture. His demand to repeal UAPA and PMLA provisions, especially the , reflects a growing judicial and scholarly consensus that these laws disproportionately curtail liberty and violate . The remarks also come amid several high-profile decisions that have sought to interpret—if not restrict—the reach of these statutes.
His emphasis on protecting peaceful protest and satire aligns with the ’s own observations in cases like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (), which struck down . However, the continued use of other provisions for censorship suggests that the battle for free speech remains far from won.
The reference to Gen Z’s role is particularly significant. As a generation that has grown up with social media and access to global information flows, this cohort is less susceptible to state propaganda and more inclined to invoke . Justice Muralidhar’s comment that their “irreverence” is “a sure sign of democratic progress” flips the script on those who view dissent as a threat to national security.
Conclusion: Democracy Alive and Under Construction
Justice Muralidhar’s address was both a defense of the and a challenge to the legal fraternity to live up to its principles. By centering the voice of the youngest generation, he underscored that democracy is not a static achievement but an ongoing practice—one that requires constant vigilance, reform, and courage.
For legal professionals, his words carry immediate relevance. They highlight the urgency of improving judicial efficiency, the imperative to resist the misuse of and , and the need to defend the space for satire and dissent. As India approaches , the law must become a shield for the citizen, not a sword for the powerful. And if the Gen Z protests are any guide, the next generation will not allow that vision to fade.
