“The rights of every man diminish when the right of one man is threatened”.
– Justice Siddharth Mridul1
Early Life and Career as an Advocate2
Justice Siddharth Mridul was born on 22-11-1962 to late Justice Pushp Raj Mridul, noted Senior Advocate and former Judge of Bombay High Court.3 Justice Siddharth Mridul did his schooling from Army Public School and his graduation from Hindu College, University of Delhi in B.A. Hons. History in 1983.
*Did You Know? Justice Siddharth Mridul is the eldest brother of noted actress Sandhya Mridul. After the demise of their father just when Justice Siddharth Mridul was about to qualify for the Bar, he had to take up the task of keeping the family together and looking after their needs by becoming a father figure to his younger siblings.4
Intending to venture into the legal field like his father, Justice Mridul did his LL. B in 1986 from the illustrated Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and then enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi on 24-07-1986.
As an advocate, Justice Siddharth Mridul had a varied practise, such as in matters relating to Writ and Writ and Appellate Jurisdictions, Civil Original and Appellate Jurisdictions, Company and Criminal Jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.
Alongside Delhi High Court, Justice Mridul also practiced in the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court at Bangalore (now Bengaluru) Bench, Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Company Law Board, Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Debt Recovery Tribunal, National and State Consumer Dispute Redress at Delhi.
Not only in practice, Justice Mridul also showed immense capability in the activities of the Bar especially when he was elected as Member of the Bar Council of Delhi for two terms 1992-1998 and 1998-2003. Served as member of the Disciplinary Committee. Also served as the Honorary Secretary to the Bar Council of Delhi from 1994 to 1997 and as Vice Chairman from 1998 to 2003.
The varied areas of practice proved to be a major step in propelling the Justice Mridul’s career as he was appointed as Standing Counsel Union of India in 2004. Justice Mridul was further appointed as Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India in 2006 and in the same year he was also designated as Senior Advocate.
Additionally, Justice Mridul was appointed by the High Court of Delhi as Member in various committees to go into inter alia, the issues of rehabilitation of children after abolition of child labour, illegal construction in contravention of municipal bye laws, and member of the committee constituted to suggest, supervise and implement measures for the efficient and hygienic functioning of the Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
Judgeship5
After proving his mettle as an advocate, Justice Mridul’s expertise was rewarded when he was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi with effect from 13-03-2008 and as a Permanent Judge on 26-05-2009.
After enriching the judiciary of Delhi High Court for about 15 years, Justice Siddharth Mridul’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 05-07-2023, as the new Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium was of the view that he was fit and suitable in all respects for being appointed as the Chief Justice of High Court of Manipur.
The recommendation was pending before the Ministry of Law and Justice for final approval. After 3 months of waiting and deliberation, Ministry of Law and Justice on 16-10-2023 notified the appointment of Justice Siddharth Mridul, Judge Delhi High Court, as the 7th Chief Justice of Manipur High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. The President of India appointed Justice Mridul in exercise of the power conferred by Article 217(1) of the Constitution.
Justice Mridul was thus sworn in as the Chief Justice of High Court of Manipur on 20-10-2023.
Notable Decisions By Justice Siddharth Mridul
The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., in A v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5396, while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual offences to the extent of rape and carnal intercourse with a child, expressed that, “…to sexually violate an innocent child is in any case an abhorrent act; but, when that happens within the filial father-daughter relationship, of which purity of affection is a sine-qua-non, the act descends to a different depth of depravity.” Instant two appeals arose from a judgment and a sentencing order.
The division bench of Siddharth Mridul and Amit Sharma, JJ., in Neeraj Varshney v. Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4562, decided the criminal writ petition by granting the prayer of the detenu to set aside the detention order passed in accordance with the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (‘COFEPOSA’), setting him at liberty forthwith since the Detaining Authority did not provide the detenu with translated and legible documents consisting of grounds for his detention.
Delhi High Court dismisses Umar Khalid’s bail plea in 2020 riots case
In an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) read with Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), titled Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3423, seeking setting aside of impugned order passed by Sessions Judge, whereby Umar Khalid’s bail application was dismissed, the division bench of Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ. had observed that the allegations against Umar Khalid are “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely regarding the consideration of grant of bail to him. Thus, his application seeking regular bail was rejected.
Mere signing documents in English does not mean the detenue has a working knowledge of English
In Sharafat Sheikh v. UOI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2725, where a detenue filed for quashing of his detention order on the grounds of violation of constitutional mandate as laid down in Article 22 (5), a Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar JJ., set aside the detention order as detenue is illiterate and the detention order must have been explained to him either in Hindi or any vernacular language, if he speaks or understands. Thus, the fact that he signed in English is not sufficient to form an opinion that he has full understanding of the language.
Devangana & Natasha v. State | Pivotal Findings in State against Devangana Kalita & Natasha Narwal
The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ., Natasha Narwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3254, granted regular bail to activist Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in the Delhi-Riots case. Appellant’s who were arrested for participating in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and in custody since 29-05-2020, preferred the appeal under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 impugning order of Special Court rejecting her bail application registered under provisions of Penal Code following to the addition of provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Bench of Ravindra Bhat and Siddharth Mridul, JJ., in P.K. Dash v. Bar Council of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493, by a common judgment directed that the principle of “one Bar, one vote” shall be applicable henceforth in every Bar Association across Delhi and also that “one person , one chamber, one court complex” shall be applicable for allotment of chambers to advocates in all the court complexes subject to the administrative control of the Delhi High Court.
As to the maintainability of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court held that the nature of relief sought is intrinsically connected with public functioning of the Court, as the activities of Bar Associations have a predominantly public character and can in many instances, affect court functioning.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma, JJ., in Shadab Khairi v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7626, dismissed a Letters Patents Appeal before it. The matter before the Court was related to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the issue before the Court for adjudication was whether the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction.
2. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul (Judge, Delhi High Court/Executive Chairperson, DSLSA) | Delhi State Legal Services Authority
3. Recall DU fosters sibling togetherness Remembering their dad, too The late Justice Pushp Raj Mridul.pdf
4. Supra
