Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar has declared that distrust in systems represents not a problem but a definitive sign of democratic progress, drawing a direct line between institutional accountability and the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly children facing starvation and inadequate medical care.
Speaking at an event addressing the intersection of democratic participation and health rights, Justice Muralidhar articulated a perspective rooted in his decades of judicial service: that citizen skepticism toward institutions functions as a necessary mechanism for democratic accountability rather than a symptom of societal fracture. His remarks placed child welfare and healthcare access at the center of discussions about what constitutes a functioning democracy.
“We should not be among those countries that find it acceptable that children are dying of starvation or that children are dying for want of medical aid,” the former chief justice stated during his address, according to multiple attendees. The statement crystallized his broader argument that democracies must be measured by their treatment of their most vulnerable citizens.
Justice Muralidhar served as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court before his retirement from the bench, a tenure marked by several significant rulings on social welfare and constitutional rights. His judicial career spans decades of appellate courts, including the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, positioning him as a respected voice on matters of constitutional governance and institutional responsibility.
The former chief justice’s observation that questioning and distrusting systems reflects democratic maturity aligns with foundational constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 21 and 21A of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to life and personal liberty alongside the right to education. His comments suggest that citizen skepticism toward institutional performance serves as an essential check on governance failures rather than representing opposition to democratic ideals.
The remarks arrive amid sustained scrutiny of India’s public health infrastructure and social welfare apparatus. Regional disparities in medical infrastructure, nutrition programs, and healthcare access continue to affect vulnerable communities across multiple states. While national schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana and the Integrated Child Development Services program represent policy commitments to child welfare, implementation gaps and resource constraints have repeatedly drawn criticism from rights advocates and judicial oversight bodies.
Public health data from the National Family Health Survey indicates that while infant mortality rates have declined over the past decade, nutritional outcomes among children under five years of age remain a persistent challenge in several regions. Anemia rates among children and maternal health indicators continue to show significant variation across states, reflecting broader socioeconomic disparities that complicate uniform implementation of welfare programs.
Justice Muralidhar’s framing positions public distrust as constructive rather than destabilizing, a perspective that carries particular weight given his judicial background. Courts, he suggested, exist precisely to provide mechanisms through which citizens can challenge institutional failures and demand accountability from the state.
The connection between institutional trust and democratic health extends beyond India. Global governance scholars have increasingly examined how citizen confidence in public institutions affects policy implementation, tax compliance, and social cohesion. Research from institutions including the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has documented correlations between institutional trust and public health outcomes, suggesting that systems perceived as corrupt or unresponsive face greater challenges in mobilizing public cooperation for health initiatives.
In the Indian context, Justice Muralidhar’s remarks touch on a tension that has animated public discourse for years: the gap between constitutional guarantees and lived realities. The Directive Principles of State Policy, though not enforceable in courts, enjoin the state to regard the welfare of the people as its primary obligation. Child welfare schemes, food security legislation, and healthcare programs represent attempts to operationalize these constitutional aspirations.
The former chief justice’s focus on child mortality from starvation and inadequate medical care points to systemic failures that persist despite constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights. Judicial interventions, including public interest litigations on food security and healthcare access, have repeatedly highlighted the distance between policy intent and ground-level implementation.
Several High Courts and the Supreme Court have issued directives aimed at strengthening implementation mechanisms for welfare programs, often in response to petitions filed by rights organizations documenting specific instances of deprivation. These interventions have occasionally resulted in enhanced funding allocations and policy modifications, though advocates note that sustained judicial monitoring remains necessary to ensure compliance.
What emerges from Justice Muralidhar’s comments is an argument that democracies strengthen themselves through institutional self-examination rather than conformity. When citizens question authority, demand transparency, and refuse to accept deprivation as inevitable, they fulfill a core democratic function that the Constitution’s architects envisioned.
The timing of these remarks coincides with broader debates about institutional legitimacy and democratic backsliding in various global contexts. India, with its complex federal structure and diverse populations, faces particular challenges in ensuring that welfare delivery mechanisms function consistently across states with varying administrative capacities.
Looking ahead, several developments warrant attention. The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare continues implementation of the National Health Mission, which aims to provide accessible, affordable, and quality healthcare to rural and vulnerable populations. Concurrent efforts to strengthen the Public Distribution System and enhance monitoring mechanisms for nutrition programs represent ongoing policy responses to the challenges Justice Muralidhar identified.
Additionally, judicial proceedings on pending public interest litigations related to child nutrition and healthcare access continue in various High Courts, providing potential avenues for further accountability mechanisms.
Justice Muralidhar’s remarks ultimately frame distrust not as a crisis to be managed but as a resource to be cultivated. A democracy that examines its failures, invites criticism, and responds to the needs of its most vulnerable members demonstrates the resilience its founders intended.
As discussions on institutional accountability and public health continue to shape policy debates, the former chief justice’s perspective offers a reminder that the strength of democratic systems lies not in the absence of criticism but in the capacity to receive it, evaluate it, and act upon it.
Sources
The Hindu – https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/distrusting-a-system-is-not-a-problem-at-all-it-is-a-sure-sign-of-democratic-progress-former-orissa-hc-chief-justice-s-muralidhar/article71430945.ece
Source: The Hindu – National
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
