Distrust isn’t a crisis—it’s a sign of democratic vitality. That’s the compelling perspective from former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar, who argues that questioning authority lies at the very heart of a functioning democracy.

Key facts

  • Justice Muralidhar chairs the UN Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel
  • He emphasizes international humanitarian law as a non-negotiable baseline
  • The interview addresses judicial independence, Governor's office misuse, and Gen Z protests

On international law and accountability

Muralidhar, who leads the UN's inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, stresses that countries like India must prioritize humanitarian principles—especially when children suffer from starvation or lack medical aid. "We should not be among those countries that find that acceptable," he states bluntly. He acknowledges the severe pressure on international courts, particularly the ICC facing U.S. sanctions, but insists these mechanisms remain crucial for holding powerful states accountable.

Judicial independence under scrutiny

The conversation turns to India’s judiciary, where Muralidhar offers a nuanced assessment. Trust hasn’t collapsed, he suggests, but the courts’ record is mixed—sometimes offering hope, sometimes disappointment. He highlights delayed rulings on significant cases like demonetisation and electoral bonds, which took years to resolve. "You allow so many elections to take place and then finally decide that the scheme was completely illegal," he notes with palpable frustration. He calls for greater assertiveness in judicial appointments and timelier responses to government actions.

The healthy pulse of dissent

Perhaps most strikingly, Muralidhar reframes the Gen Z protests not as a problem but as democratic progress. "Distrusting a system is not a problem at all," he asserts. "It is a sure sign of democratic progress." He sees young people exercising constitutional rights—free speech, assembly, association—with fearlessness and humor. When protests remain peaceful, he argues, the judiciary must protect these expressions from disproportionate state force. His message resonates: questioning power isn’t distrust; it’s democracy in action.