The Supreme Court of India, often hailed as the guardian of the Constitution, turned 75 in 2025—a milestone that coincides with the nation’s own journey toward maturity as a democracy. Established on January 26, 1950, just as the Republic of India came into being, the Court has been at the heart of some of the country’s most transformative moments. From landmark rulings on fundamental rights to contentious decisions on governance and social issues, it has shaped the legal landscape in ways both celebrated and criticized. But as the institution marks this anniversary, questions linger: Has it truly delivered on the promise of “complete justice” enshrined in Article 142 of the Constitution? Or has it fallen short in key areas, leaving justice incomplete for many?
Table of Contents
This is the central provocation of the book [In]Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75: Critical Reflections, edited by Senior Advocate and former Chief Justice S. Muralidhar. Published by Juggernaut Books in August 2025, the anthology brings together 24 essays and interviews from a stellar lineup of legal minds—former judges, practicing lawyers, scholars, researchers, and even a journalist. It’s not a fawning tribute but a nuanced, often unflinching critique of the Court’s evolution, its successes, failures, and ongoing challenges. In a country where the judiciary is both revered and scrutinized, this book arrives at a timely juncture, sparking conversations about accountability, transparency, and the Court’s role in upholding constitutional democracy.
As someone who’s followed Indian legal developments for years, I find this collection particularly compelling. It’s not just academic; it’s grounded in real-world experiences from those who’ve been inside the system or argued before it. The title itself, with its bracketed “In,” cleverly hints at the incompleteness of justice— a play on words that underscores the book’s thesis: while the Supreme Court has achieved much, there’s still a long way to go. Over the next few thousand words, I’ll dive deep into what this book covers, who contributed to it, and why it matters. I’ll draw on the book’s themes, the editor’s background, and recent discussions around its launch to paint a comprehensive picture. This isn’t a formal review (since I’ve pieced together insights from descriptions, excerpts, and public events), but rather an exploratory article that aims to capture the essence of this important work.
The Editor: S. Muralidhar’s Journey from Bench to Bar
To understand the book, it’s essential to know the man behind it. Dr. S. Muralidhar, born in 1961, has had a storied career that embodies the intersections of law, justice, and social conscience. A chemistry graduate from Vivekananda College in Chennai, he switched to law, topping his LLB at the University of Madras and representing India at the prestigious Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in 1984. Starting his practice in Madras, he moved to Delhi in 1987, working under then-Additional Solicitor General G. Ramaswamy. By 1990, he aced the Advocate-on-Record exam at the Supreme Court, securing first place.
Muralidhar’s advocacy often focused on public interest issues—economic, social, and cultural rights, legal aid, and environmental justice. His PhD thesis on “Legal Aid and the Criminal Justice System in India” reflects his commitment to access to justice. Elevated to the Delhi High Court in 2006, he became known for bold rulings. For instance, he decriminalized homosexuality in the landmark Naz Foundation case (later overturned but reinstated by the Supreme Court), and he was vocal on issues like police accountability during the 2020 Delhi riots.
His transfer from Delhi to Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2020 raised eyebrows. Notified late at night on February 26, 2020—hours after he criticized the Delhi Police for inaction on hate speeches during the riots—it was seen by many as punitive. In a recent interview with ThePrint’s Apoorva Mandhani, Muralidhar reflected on this: “I wasn’t surprised; the timing made it plain.” He served as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court from 2021 to 2023, where he emphasized practicing the Constitution daily to keep it alive. Now back as a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court, Muralidhar brings an insider’s perspective to this book, assisted by advocates Ninni Susan Thomas and Maitreya Subramanium.
Muralidhar’s own experiences— from facing caste discrimination anecdotes in lectures to advocating for transformative constitutionalism—infuse the book with authenticity. He once shared a story of a judge purifying his chamber with gangajal after a Dalit predecessor, highlighting how untouchability persists despite Article 17. This personal touch makes [In]Complete Justice? more than a scholarly tome; it’s a call to action.
The Book’s Core: Themes and Structure
At its heart, the book examines how the Supreme Court has transformed over 75 years—in composition, functioning, and influence on society and government. It positions the Court as a “counter-majoritarian” institution, meant to check majoritarian excesses and protect minorities. But has it succeeded? The essays delve into successes like expanding rights through public interest litigation (PIL) and failures, such as delays in hearing critical cases or perceived inconsistencies in upholding values like liberty, equality, fraternity, and dignity.
The structure is anthology-style: 24 pieces, including essays and interviews, offering diverse viewpoints. Contributors range from retired justices to activists, ensuring a “multi-dimensional perspective.” Key themes include:
- Judicial Activism vs. Accountability: How the Court balances bold interventions (e.g., Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment) with self-restraint and transparency.
- Constitutional Fidelity: Consistency in interpreting core ideals. Does the Court truly advance equality, or does it sometimes reinforce societal biases?
- Legitimacy and Public Trust: Amid criticisms of “judicial overreach” or “executive influence,” how does the Court maintain credibility?
- Specific Challenges: Delays, pragmatism in landmark cases like Aadhaar, arbitration, criminal justice, and more.
The book aims to “foster meaningful dialogue” on these issues, not to indict the Court but to strengthen it.
Key Contributors and Their Insights
What makes this book stand out is its roster of contributors—eminent figures whose collective wisdom spans decades of legal practice and scholarship. Let’s explore some, drawing on their known expertise and available excerpts.
Justice A.P. Shah
Former Chief Justice of Delhi and Madras High Courts, Shah is known for progressive rulings on privacy and free speech. His essay likely critiques the Court’s handling of rights in the digital age, perhaps touching on surveillance or data protection post-Puttaswamy (the right to privacy case).
Justice Madan B. Lokur
A retired Supreme Court judge, Lokur has been vocal on judicial reforms. He might discuss case management, backlog reduction, or the collegium system—issues he’s addressed in public forums.
Raju Ramachandran
As a Senior Advocate, Ramachandran has argued in high-profile cases like the Ayodhya dispute. His contribution could focus on advocacy perspectives, perhaps on how the Court’s procedures affect fair hearings.
Usha Ramanathan
A legal researcher and activist, Ramanathan’s essay, “Judicial Delay and Pragmatism,” excerpts reveal her critique of the Aadhaar case. She describes how the case “remained on ice” for years, allowing the program to expand unchecked despite privacy concerns. This highlights how delays can undermine justice, turning the Court into a bystander rather than a protector.
Ramanathan’s work often exposes how technology intersects with rights. In the excerpt, she notes the government’s “pragmatic” push to link Aadhaar with everything from bank accounts to school admissions, while the Court deferred hearings. This led to a fait accompli, where the system’s entrenchment made reversal difficult. Her piece underscores a broader theme: judicial timidity in the face of executive momentum.
Rohan J. Alva
An advocate and scholar, Alva might explore constitutional interpretation, perhaps federalism or emergency powers, given his writings on these topics.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Recently retired from the Supreme Court, Bhat authored key judgments on same-sex marriage and electoral bonds. His essay could reflect on the Court’s role in social justice, balancing tradition with progress.
Rebecca Mammen John and Nitya Ramakrishnan
Senior Advocates specializing in criminal law, they likely address gender justice, bail reforms, or the death penalty. John, known for defending in high-profile trials, might critique biases in criminal proceedings.
Vrinda Grover
A human rights lawyer, Grover’s work on violence against women and minorities could lead to an essay on the Court’s response to communalism or sexual violence cases.
Faizan Mustafa
Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Mustafa is an expert on personal laws. His contribution might analyze the Court’s handling of uniform civil code debates or religious freedoms.
G. Mohan Gopal
Former Director of the National Judicial Academy, Gopal could discuss judicial education and ethics, perhaps critiquing training gaps that lead to inconsistent rulings.
P. Sainath
The journalist among lawyers, Sainath brings a ground-level view. Known for rural reporting, his essay might examine how the Court’s decisions impact marginalized farmers or laborers, highlighting access barriers.
Justice K. Chandru
A retired Madras High Court judge and inspiration for the film Jai Bhim, Chandru’s piece could focus on caste discrimination in the judiciary, echoing Muralidhar’s anecdotes.
Justice Gautam Patel
Bombay High Court judge, famous for witty judgments, might discuss judicial writing or transparency in proceedings.
Arvind P. Datar
Senior Advocate and tax expert, Datar could critique economic rulings, like GST or demonetization challenges.
Gautam Bhatia
Lawyer and author of The Transformative Constitution, Bhatia’s essay likely delves into interpretive theories, advocating for a rights-centered approach.
Suhrith Parthasarathy
An advocate, Parthasarathy writes on constitutional law; his contribution might cover free speech or media regulation.
Amit George
In his essay “Judicial Review and Arbitral Awards,” George questions if former judges make better arbitrators. Excerpts suggest he explores the tension between judicial oversight and arbitration’s autonomy. In India, where arbitration is promoted to ease court burdens, George’s piece critiques how excessive review undermines efficiency. He might argue that ex-judges, steeped in adversarial traditions, could bias toward intervention, raising questions about impartiality in alternative dispute resolution.
Meenakshi Arora
Senior Advocate, Arora has argued in landmark cases like triple talaq. Her essay could address women’s rights or family law reforms.
Gopal Subramanium
Former Solicitor General, Subramanium might discuss the Court’s international law engagements or ethical dilemmas in advocacy.
Kamala Sankaran
A labor law professor, Sankaran could examine economic rights, like gig worker protections.
The book also includes interviews with Prof. Upendra Baxi (constitutional theorist), Indira Jaising (feminist lawyer), and Sriram Panchu (mediator). Baxi’s interview likely philosophizes on transformative constitutionalism, Jaising on gender justice, and Panchu on alternative resolutions.
This diversity ensures the book isn’t monolithic. As Muralidhar noted at the launch, the Court has become “more rushed, more chaotic,” with miscellaneous work dominating. Contributors echo this, calling for reforms.
Historical Context: The Supreme Court’s 75-Year Arc
To appreciate the book’s critiques, let’s contextualize the Court’s history. In its early years (1950s-60s), it was conservative, upholding property rights in cases like Golaknath (1967), which limited Parliament’s amendment powers. The Emergency (1975-77) marked a low point, with ADM Jabalpur suspending habeas corpus.
Post-Emergency, the Court reinvented itself through PILs, pioneered by justices like P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. Cases like Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded due process, while environmental rulings (e.g., Vellore Citizens, 1996) introduced sustainable development principles.
The 1990s-2000s saw activism peak: Vishaka (1997) on workplace harassment, DK Basu (1997) on custodial deaths. But criticisms grew—overreach in forest cases or inconsistent bail grants.
In the 2010s-20s, the Court navigated Aadhaar (2018, upholding but limiting), Sabarimala (2018, women entry), Ayodhya (2019, temple trust), and Article 370 abrogation (2019, upheld). Recent years have seen debates on electoral bonds (struck down 2024), same-sex marriage (denied 2023), and hate speech inaction.
The book interrogates this arc: Has activism waned? Why delays in politically sensitive cases? Excerpts like Ramanathan’s on Aadhaar show how pragmatism—deferring to government “progress”—can erode rights.
The Launch Event: Conversations and Controversies
The book launched on August 27, 2025, at India International Centre, Delhi, with a panel featuring Justice Abhay S. Oka, Prof. Gopal Guru, and Muralidhar, moderated by Manisha Pande. Livestreamed by LiveLaw, it drew attention for candid discussions.
Justice Oka, known for accessible justice, likely emphasized fraternity and equality. Prof. Guru, a political scientist, might have linked judicial issues to social inequalities. Muralidhar shared anecdotes, like a law researcher drafting dual judgments for a judge to pick—highlighting mechanization in justice delivery.
Post-launch, social media buzzed. ThePrint’s interview with Muralidhar went viral, where he discussed his transfer without bitterness but with clarity on timing. X users praised the book’s timeliness, with one noting, “Finally, a critical take from insiders.”
Broader Implications: Why This Book Matters Now
In a polarized India, where the judiciary faces accusations of executive capture or elitism, [In]Complete Justice? offers a balanced critique. It doesn’t shy from “politically incorrect” claims, like questioning if the Court’s composition reflects diversity or if delays favor the powerful.
For students, lawyers, and citizens, it’s a primer on judicial mechanics. Themes like arbitration (George’s essay) are timely, with India pushing for dispute resolution hubs. On delays, Ramanathan’s Aadhaar analysis reminds us how time can be a tool of injustice.
Muralidhar’s vision—practicing the Constitution daily—resonates. As he said, “The Constitution was written with blood and sweat… The only way to protect it is to practise it, otherwise it will die.”
