Former Chief Justice of Odisha High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar retired on 7 August this year. Prior to this, he has also been a Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court, but when he didn't get a chance in the Supreme Court. The personalities of the judicial world have raised questions on this. Former Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur, Sr. Advocates Fali S. Nariman and Shriram Panchu have questioned the collegiality itself and asked why Justice Muralidhar was not sent to the Supreme Court. Had he been promoted to the Supreme Court, his retirement age would have been 07th August, 2026.

The three jurists have questioned the decision of the Collegium through an article written in the Indian Express. It has been written in this article that Justice Muralidhar had an illustrious career as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. He had a deep understanding of the criminal justice system. Justice Muralidhar, who did his PhD from Delhi University, also had a sound academic understanding of law. He was also a lawyer in many important cases, such as during the TN Seshan era, he argued on behalf of the Election Commission. Apart from this, he was also a member of the Law Commission.

He was a judge in the Delhi High Court from 2006 to 2020. All three experts wrote that Justice Muralidhar

He had a brilliant understanding of criminal justice. Even after this, he is not promoted to the Supreme Court is beyond comprehension. Question to the Collegium: Justice S. Murlidhar In the article titled 'Why Muralidhar was not sent to the Supreme Court', the decisions of former justices were also mentioned. One of these cases was also regarding the riots in Delhi. While hearing the matter, Justice S. Murlidhar had said that if the Delhi Police had taken timely action in the matter of inciting speeches, this situation would not have arisen.

Apart from this, the changes brought in the Odisha High Court during his stay as the Chief Justice were also mentioned. The article said, 'After all, why was this brilliant judge not sent to the Supreme Court, whose ability was excellent and he had also done his work well. After all, what was the basis for ignoring him, when he lived up to the standards.