India Must Hold Israel to Humanitarian Law: UN Panel Chair

Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar, who now chairs the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has called on India to anchor its foreign policy in international humanitarian law. In an interview, he stressed that New Delhi’s historical support for the Palestinian cause must translate into public disapproval of civilian suffering, even as it maintains strategic ties with Israel.

Muralidhar argued that India should never cross the "bottom line" of accepting the deaths of children from starvation or lack of medical care. He urged that this concern be placed at the forefront of negotiations with Israel, reflecting the country’s stated values.

On the efficacy of global institutions, Muralidhar expressed concern over the pressure faced by the International Criminal Court, noting that sanctions imposed by the United States on its judges are a troubling development. He lamented that the international community has offered little beyond token protests, warning that this undermines the ability of bodies like the ICC and the International Court of Justice to hold powerful states and individuals accountable. He argued that these forums are vital for nations under geopolitical stress, including India.

Turning to domestic issues, Muralidhar offered a nuanced view of the judiciary’s standing. He rejected the idea of a wholesale loss of public trust, pointing to high filing rates as evidence that citizens still turn to courts. However, he acknowledged a "mixed record," citing delays in deciding crucial cases, such as those on demonetisation and electoral bonds, which raise questions about responsiveness and independence.

He identified the district judiciary as the least independent tier, noting that while many judges show remarkable courage, they are fewer than desirable. Muralidhar called for greater assertiveness in judicial appointments and for courts to take up government actions promptly.

On the role of Governors, he asserted that the office has historically functioned as an extended arm of the central government, regardless of the ruling dispensation. He argued that the Constitution never intended Governors to exercise such discretionary power, and that their misuse in forming or dismissing governments is a persistent problem.

Addressing the use of coercive state powers, Muralidhar emphasised that procedural safeguards, such as furnishing grounds for arrest, must apply uniformly across all statutes, including the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He insisted that courts must place individual liberty at the highest value and remain intolerant of procedural bypasses, a principle he said applies directly to the actions of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate.