Gen Z Protests Assure Democracy In India Won't Die; 'Dimaghi Naxal' Label Won't Stop Them : S Muralidhar

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, also a former High Court Chief Justice, today praised the recent students' protest at Jantar Mantar as a reassuring sign for Indian democracy. At the same time, he spoke against the government for misusing the criminal justice system and labelling peaceful protestors as those trying to destabilise the government.

"The recent protests by Gen-Z assure us that democracy in India will not be allowed to die and that people will turn to the Constitution to safeguard and preserve this country's future. The week of 20th July this year was one of relief and joy. It was reassuring to know that our young generation will not be swayed by rhetoric and propaganda by powerful oratory, reminiscent of the Goebbelian polemic and empty promises of 'Ache din' and Viksit Bharat. They remained undeterred by the demonising of the 'Dhimagi Naxal'. It told us this generation's value is giving, compassion and adherence to truth. It doesn't hesitate to ask questions to those in power and of course, Gen Z has a wonderful sense of humour. The irreverence of Gen Z is a sure sign of democratic progress."

Muralidhar was speaking at the 28th D.S. Borker Memorial Lecture on the topic 'My Vision of India'. Speaking of his vision of India, he said that India would be best served if the law doesn't criminalise the honest criticism of the government.

"India of 2047 would be better served if the law doesn't permit criminalising honest criticism of the government or of those running it, or of them being lampooned in cartoons or jokes of standup comedians. India of 2047 would be better served if the India of today stops weaponising the law against those peacefully protesting against the denial of basic rights and if it stops labelling them as 'sinister acts of conspiracy' to destabilise the government."

He also shared his vision of the legislature, and called for a repeal of preventive detention laws and draconian laws such as UAPA and PMLA, where bail is denied due to twin-bail conditions. Equally, he spoke of his vision of what the judiciary is expected to look like in 2047.

Judiciary of 2047 wouldn't wait for years to decide on demonetisation or restoring J&K Statehood

Muralidhar remarked that unlike the present judiciary, the 2047 judiciary will not wait for 4 years to decide whether reducing a State to a Union Territory is constitutionally valid. He added that he doesn't expect the future judiciary to wait for 6 years to decide whether the exercise of demonetisation or electoral bonds was constitutional or not.

The former judge spoke on many issues such as vacancies in the judicial system, pendency, and delays. He also spoke on the need for an independent Bar. Speaking on his vision of the Bar, he said that he expects a reformed BCI that is democratic in its functioning and isolated from the interference of the executive and the judiciary.

He also referred to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that the government will set up fast-track Courts for timely prosecution in cases of paper leaks in India and the subsequent Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026. He questioned whether setting up fast-track Courts will solve the problem.

"There is a tweet by the Prime Minister about setting up fast-track Courts to deal with paper leak cases. Many of us realise that it's not going anywhere because the same existing judges are simply designated in the special court or fast-track courts or commercial courts. It is like wearing different hats. If you go to Meghalaya, the same judge is in the Commercial Court, Special Court, CBI Court or the Court for MP/MLA cases. So, we do this with great flourish, thinking it will solve problems but its compounding problems for the judiciary."

Dr Murlidhar also spoke on the digitisation of the Courts and the Bar. He stated that although most of the Courts across the country have progressed, there seems to be a digitisation divide amongst the lawyers.

He shared an incident where an injunction matter was before a judge of the Delhi High Court, who is known to have a very patient demeanour. He said when the matter was taken up, a senior advocate began arguing and continued for 20 minutes before he paused and the judge informed he hasn't even received the files of the case.

 On this, Muralidhar said: "This problem of records being stuck in our Courts can easily be overcome if we resort to digitisation of our court records. It will help the cases move faster."

He also criticised how the judicial system has completely become centric to every part except the litigant. While stating that the judicial process hasn't been completely democratic, Muralidhar also talked about the use of archaic terms such as "Your Lordship" while referring to judges. He referred to those terms as vestiges of "patriarchy" and "feudalism".

Sharing an incident, he said: "There is an obsession with protocols, archaic forms of address and usage of expressions. When Justice AP Shah was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, when he travelled by road from Chennai to Madurai, he found that at every toll gate of every District crossing, there would be District Judge and Local Magistrate to greet him. He said, 'what is going on? Why are these people not sitting in courts and waiting to receive him?" [They said] it's protocol, your lordship is travelling, so we have to pay our respects. Then he lands in one of the districts and he is walking around, and he finds a stray circular someone has forgotten to put it in drawer, which says "Please contribute to your lordships' entertainment fund."

He questioned why court staff should contribute whenever a justice is visiting the Court.

At the same time, he equally blamed the executive for amending legislation without a judicial impact assessment. He referred to the amendment brought to the Negotiable Instruments Act which criminalised bouncing of cheques and its impact on the Magistrate Court, which now has lakhs of arrears. 

"The 1988 amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act that criminalised  the bouncing of cheques increased the workload of a magistrate courts hugely as we have 40 lac cheque bouncing cases that make up to 40% of the pending cases. Therefore, decriminalising the offence of cheque bouncing and restoring status quo is a no-brainer."