Latest news with #SMuralidhar
News18
22-07-2025
- News18
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Who Is Ex-HC Judge Muralidhar? Why did he say innocent in jail
Last Updated: 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 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.
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Zepto workers' strike: In India's gig economy, the continuing struggle for dignity
In the past week, hundreds of Zepto delivery workers in Hyderabad have gone on an indefinite strike. Their demands are basic: Fair pay, decent working hours, social security, and dignity. These are not new demands, nor are they unreasonable. Coordinated by the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers' Union (TGPWU), the strike follows a growing pattern of worker unrest across India's platform economy — from Blinkit to Swiggy — where the promise of entrepreneurial freedom has worn thin under the weight of wage theft, surveillance, and hyper-precarity. In Delhi, 50 Zepto workers recently filed a complaint alleging they were lured from rural areas with promises of ₹30,000 per month, free food, and accommodation. Upon arrival, they faced substandard living conditions, pay cuts, and withheld wages. Zepto has since responded with a familiar script: Distancing itself from the workers through legalistic disavowals. 'We are a technology platform,' the company claims. 'Vendors are responsible for hiring and payment.' This arm's-length logic is by design. It allows platforms to maintain granular algorithmic control — via GPS tracking, performance ratings, and app-based scheduling — while denying any legal responsibility as employers, as has been documented by People's Union for Democratic Rights' Report 2021. Meanwhile, Zepto Cafe pausing services in some locations, thereby affecting 44 stores and 700 gig workers, shows platform capital treats labour as disposable — plugged into the supply chain when needed, discarded when not. It's not just a pause; it's the logic of exploitation in motion. These are not isolated incidents of corporate malfeasance. They reveal something far more structural: The hollowness of India's legal and policy framework for gig and platform workers. Despite repeated gestures toward recognition — most recently in the Union Budget 2025 and the Code on Social Security, 2020 — India's gig and platform workers remain in a zone of legal abandonment. The Zepto strike shatters the illusion that formal recognition in law translates into material rights. State as database manager, not protector The contradictions in India's approach to platform labour are stark. In 2008, the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act was passed to provide a basic welfare framework for workers outside the formal economy. It defined 'unorganised workers' broadly enough to arguably include gig workers. Yet, when Senior Advocate S Muralidhar recently appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT), the petition did not even seek relief — it sought a mere clarification. Do gig workers fall under the Act's scope? The fact that this question still lacks a definitive legal answer reveals the abyss in which workers are suspended. The 2020 Code on Social Security was hailed as a breakthrough: It was the first time 'gig and platform workers' were defined in Indian law [Section 2(35) and 2(61), respectively]. Yet this recognition remains inert. The Code has never been notified, which means it has no legal force. Meanwhile, the government insists that schemes under the Code are 'being formulated.' This formulation has now been 'ongoing' for over four years. Under the Code on Social Security, 2020, two key schemes were envisioned for gig and platform workers: National Social Security Board for Gig and Platform Workers: A body meant to recommend and oversee social security schemes for gig workers without ensuring universal social security for platform workers. Voluntary Registration and Contribution-Based Welfare: The Code allows for workers to self-register on a central portal. Aggregators (platform companies like Zepto, Swiggy, Ola, etc.) are expected to register their workers on the e-Shram portal. Upon registration, platform workers will receive a Universal Account Number (UAN), which will allow them access to key social security benefits. The e-Shram portal, introduced in 2021, was supposed to be a central database for unorganised workers, including gig workers. But data without rights is surveillance, not welfare. Registration has not translated into healthcare, accident insurance, or pension. The machinery of welfare exists on paper but is void of substance. The contradiction is clear: Gig workers are visible enough to be surveyed, counted, and claimed as beneficiaries in policy announcements. But they remain invisible in enforcement, excluded from labour protections, and denied bargaining rights. Beyond welfare: The struggle for power Despite the Centre's inaction, certain states have begun experimenting with more robust protections for gig and platform workers — signaling that labour governance may be forced from the margins inward. In 2023, Rajasthan enacted the Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, mandating the creation of a welfare board and compelling platforms to contribute to a dedicated welfare fund. Karnataka followed in 2024 with the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, proposing a welfare cess ranging from 1 per cent to 5 per cent on each transaction or payout made by platforms to gig workers. The state government aims to operationalise the gig workers' welfare fund by August 2025. These subnational laws reflect growing political recognition of gig workers as a distinct labour constituency — one increasingly vocal, organised, and electorally visible. Yet their success depends on implementation, especially amid pushback from industry lobbies and jurisdictional ambiguities over labour regulation in a federal setup. Nonetheless, these initiatives challenge the Centre's narrative of policy sufficiency and demonstrate that meaningful recognition can — and must — begin with redistributing control, not merely registering the governed. Proposals like the 2 per cent deduction from workers' earnings for social security raise further concerns. Without enforceable benefits, such deductions are not contributions — they are taxes on the poor. Moreover, corporate executives are candid in acknowledging that any costs related to worker welfare are ultimately passed on to consumers, revealing the inherent limits of voluntary corporate social responsibility. In this way, the state's role has shifted from genuinely transforming the gig economy to managing its precarious consequences: Offering health insurance or social security schemes funded through deductions may provide temporary relief, but these measures merely patch the symptoms of a deeper problem — platform business models that systematically externalise labour costs and evade employer responsibilities. Recognition becomes a technique of pacification, not empowerment. This is the new face of labour governance under platform capitalism: Symbolic inclusion in exchange for structural abandonment. The ongoing protests go beyond demands for welfare — they call for dignity, accountability, and control over working conditions. Gig workers are not seeking handouts but power: The right to unionise, bargain collectively, and reject exploitation. The Zepto strike, like recent actions at Swiggy and Blinkit, exposes the hollowness of legal recognition without enforceable rights. Unless the labour codes are implemented and platforms held accountable, India's digital economy will remain a site of extraction. Real recognition must begin by acknowledging gig workers not as data points or beneficiaries, but as rights-bearing workers demanding justice and dignity. The writer is Visiting Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and editor of the book Feminist Perspectives on Social Media
