2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Who Is Ex-HC Judge Muralidhar? Why did he say innocent in jail
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: "There is a bias in probe. Innocent people are sent to jail, and years later, they are released...,' said senior counsel and former HC judge S Muralidhar
'Innocent In Jail In 2006 Train Blasts Case': Why 'Lincoln Lawyer' & Ex-HC Judge Muralidhar Said This
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: In January, senior counsel and former Delhi High Court (HC) judge S Muralidhar said something which is ringing true in the wake of the acquittal of the 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case.
'There is a bias in the investigation. Innocent people are sent to jail, and years later, they are released for want of evidence. By then, there is no possibility of reconstructing their lives," argued Muralidhar. Representing two of the accused, Zameer Shaikh and Muzzammil Shaikh, the former judge had pointed to what he called 'serious flaws and communal bias" in the investigation.
On July 11, 2006, seven blasts within a span of 11 minutes in the first-class compartments of Western Railway (WR) local trains left 189 dead and several injured. The MCOCA court in September 2015 convicted 12 of the 13 arrested in the case. Kamal Ansari (now dead), Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan were sentenced to death, while Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Rehman Shaikh were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Who is justice S Muralidhar?
Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar was born on August 8, 1961. He began his academic journey in Chennai, where he completed his B.Sc. in Chemistry from Vivekananda College under the University of Madras in 1981, graduating with first-class honors. He then pursued law at the Madras Law College, also affiliated with the University of Madras, where he earned his Bachelor of Laws (B.L.) degree in 1984, securing the first rank and receiving multiple academic distinctions, including the L.C. Miller Medal and the Carmichael and Innes Prize. He went on to complete an LL.M. in Constitutional and Administrative Law from Nagpur University in 1990, again topping his class. In 2003, he was awarded a Ph.D. in law by the University of Delhi for his thesis on 'Legal Aid and the Criminal Justice System in India." Additionally, he qualified as a Company Secretary in 1985.
He demitted office as the Chief Justice of Orissa HC on August 7, 2023, after a 17-year illustrious career as a judge. Justice Muralidhar served the Delhi HC 14 years, before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana HC through a midnight order. In December 2020, he was elevated as the Chief Justice of the Orissa HC.
In September 2022, the Supreme Court collegium recommended his transfer to Madras HC, but the Centre did not notify it.
India's Lincoln Lawyer: Blue Maruti Omni as office & key judgments
The judge was known for his blue Maruti Omni van that used to be parked at the SC's parking lot — that he used as his 'chamber'.
Some of his prominent verdicts as Delhi HC judge include:
Northeast Delhi riots in 2020: His bench in an emergency midnight hearing on February 26, 2020, directed Delhi police to ensure safe passage to GTB hospital for treatment.
CAA-linked violence: He rapped the Delhi police for failing to take action against three BJP leaders for hate speech.
Homosexuality: He was part of the bench that first decriminalised homosexuality in the Naz Foundation case in 2009.
Bhima-Koregaon case: He granted relief to Gautam Navlakha.
1986 Hashimpura massacre : He also convicted 16 members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary for their role in the case, which witnessed the killing of 50 Muslim men by police.
1984 anti-Sikh riots: He delivered the verdict on conviction of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his role in the incident.
Disclosure of assets of SC judges: He allowed RTI pleas on in 2010.
Essential to imbibe Constitutional values: Justice Muralidhar
'The most moving moment as a judge was in this very court sitting where I am today when on July 2, 2009, Chief Justice A.P. Shah and I delivered our judgment in Naz Foundation. Even as we held that consensual same-sex between adults in private was not a crime, the relief that swept through the courtroom amongst those waiting to hear the verdict was palpable. Many broke down right here in front of us. At that moment, we knew that something irreversible had happened," he said in his farewell speech in Delhi HC in 2020.
'Over the years, I have realised that it is not enough for lawyers and judges to speak about constitutional values. It is essential to imbibe them."
With Agency Inputs
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts 2006 Mumbai Train Bomb Blast news18 specials
view comments
Location :
Mumbai, India, India
First Published:
July 22, 2025, 12:58 IST
News india 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Who Is Ex-HC Judge Muralidhar? Why did he say innocent in jail
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Time of India
HC orders fresh look at hijack convict's early release plea
NEW DELHI: Delhi high court has granted relief to a man denied premature release while serving a life term for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight in 1993, saying his conduct in jail bore signs of reformation. A single judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside a decision of a Sentence Review Board (SRB) against Hari Singh and asked it to consider his case afresh within eight weeks. "Petitioner's conduct in jail does indicate elements of reformation as even over a long period of incarceration (almost 18 years of actual imprisonment), there is no record of any untoward incident which would indicate that the petitioner still harbours elements of criminality," Justice Narula said in his recent order. According to the prosecution, Singh hijacked the plane because he was not happy with riots that year in the aftermath of Babri Masjid's razing in Dec 1992. He was convicted by a trial court in 2001 under Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 and several IPC sections. His appeal was rejected by the HC in 2011. His Supreme Court plea was withdrawn. Singh told the HC that his name was periodically taken up for consideration of premature release by SRB, but rejected on grounds of gravity of his offence. Justice Narula held that SRB's reasons to reject Singh's plea were inadequate and did not meet standards of reasonable justification necessary for an executive authority's order.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
30 yrs on, man acquitted of abetting his wife's suicide
Mumbai: Nearly three decades after being convicted of abetting his wife's suicide by being cruel and harassing her about her complexion, among other things, a shepherd, then 23, was acquitted by Bombay high court. Domestic quarrels, including remarks about complexion and threats of a second marriage, do not constitute criminal harassment under the law, observed Justice S M Modak, who on July 11 set the man free. Quashing the man's conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment for suicide abetment under section 306 of erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one-year rigorous imprisonment for cruelty to his wife under section 498A, IPC, Justice Modak, sitting singly, said, "The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel, or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take the colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment. " You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai In 1998, following his conviction, the man appealed before HC. He was in Satara jail at the time and later out on bail. The conviction was unsupported by evidence, HC said and criticised the trial court for having "forgotten basic principles and ingredients of section 306 of IPC (suicide abetment)". Abetment needs to be proved for suicide, HC said. On record, though wife "was being taunted on account of her complexion, I do not think that it will fall within the explanation to section 498-A..." said Justice Modak. The prosecution also failed to prove the wife's suicide was due to harassment. The shepherd's father, also a co-accused, complained of her cooking, it was alleged. The marriage was in 1993, and the wife died in Jan 1998. Both sides shared the wedding expenses, HC noted, and there was no dowry demand. As a goatherd, he was away from home, "for a long time" and she would go to her mother's house, complain about harassment, and ended her life one day, HC noted. There seemed to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. "They are domestic quarrels," HC said and offence of cruelty requires husband's wilful conduct to be "of a high degree," which HC said in the case could not be considered so high as to compel the suicide. "...the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law," HC held and acquitted the husband.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Why no probe if a petition filed, HC asks joint CP
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed the joint commissioner of police (law and order) to show provisions of law that prohibit investigating officers from conducting investigations only because of petitions filed by accused persons. "It clearly gives an impression that investigating officers are either not serious in investigating the crimes or, with a view to shrug off the lawful responsibility, are adopting such sham and/or moonlight pleas before the courts," said Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil in an order passed on Wednesday. They were hearing petitions by two persons to quash an Oct 23, 2023 FIR registered against them by Goregaon police station under IPC sections, including for criminal breach of trust and cheating. The judges said the "record of the present case shocks the conscience of this court." To their query, the prosecutor, after taking instructions from the investigating officer, police inspector Satish Umare, submitted that the investigation is being conducted. However, he said due to the pendency of the present petitions, it is not concluded, and as a consequence, the chargesheet is not filed. "The aforesaid submission on behalf of the state is contrary to all fundamental principles of investigation and law of the land," the judges said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Oldest Actors in the World. Reportingly Undo You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai They noted that both the petitions were filed in Nov 2023, and the HC had not granted interim relief of any nature in favour of the petitioners. "We are regularly coming across such sorts of pleas by the prosecution," they said. The judges mentioned examples of the police not conducting investigations; "petition is filed" and "consent terms are filed before the trial court in anticipatory bail applications" and "other palpably specious pleas. " Therefore, they deemed it appropriate to direct the joint CP to file his detailed reply to the petitions within a week. If he "comes to a conclusion that the investigating officer(s) have deliberately not conducted the investigation only with a view to help the accused, then what necessary action he will adopt against the concerned shall be stated in the affidavit," the judges directed. Adjourning the hearing to Aug 6, they also directed him "not to delegate his powers to any subordinate officer while filing the reply. "
