7th Chief Justice of Manipur High Court, Justice Siddharth Mridul, retires after a tenure of 13 months

“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 Court³. 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 siblings⁴.

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, 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 and Justice Mridul was thus sworn in as the Chief Justice of High Court of Manipur on 20-10-2023.

Acknowledging the rising necessity for alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, especially Mediation, Justice Siddharth Mridul, while addressing the gathering of the inaugural session of “40 Hours Mediation Training Programme” at Manipur HC auditorium on Monday, announced rolled out plans for establishing a Permanent Mediation Centre in the High Court of Manipur, which will pave the necessary platform for augmenting the mediation related activities in the state. The programme was organised by the High Court of Manipur, in collaboration with the High Court Legal Services Committee and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Mridul said that “Mediation offers a viable alternative to traditional litigation, fostering a collaborative environment where parties can resolve disputes amicably”.⁶

As a part of the “Safai Abhiyan” under the Swachhata Hi Seva programme, the High Court of Manipur, under the leadership of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul, organised a special programme on Friday in the Judges Lounge, High Court of Manipur to distribute Personal Accident Policy Certificates to its Safai Karamcharis. Justice Mridul highlighted the significance of providing accident insurance coverage for employees engaged in essential services such as sanitation in the High Court. He emphasised the vital contribution of the Safai Karamcharis to the day-to-day operations of the Court, acknowledging their tireless dedication and service⁷.

Notable Decisions by Justice Siddharth Mridul

[Restoration of internet services] Manipur HC directs State to provide information on feasibility of restoring internet services within the Greater Imphal area

The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul, C.J. and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui, J., in Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Manipur, 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 297, directed the Government of Manipur to produce the relevant original file containing the deliberations and decisions of the Review Committee concerning restoration of internet in Greater Imphal Area. The Court further directed the State to inform the Court qua the feasibility of restoring internet services within the Greater Imphal area, forthwith, unless the competent authority is of the view that, it is necessary and expedient in the interest of national security or public order to continue with the restrictions imposed on internet services in the said area.

Manipur HC expresses displeasure over lawyer for publicly presenting minutes of meeting conducted by HCLSC without obtaining requisite permission

The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul, CJ and Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J., in Sarungbam Medini Devi v. State of Manipur, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 91, reproached a lawyer for abuse of process of court by presenting no substantive averments in his petition which may require adjudication. Furthermore, the Court berated the lawyer for putting the minutes of meeting conducted by Manipur High Court Legal Services Committee in public domain without obtaining required permissions.

Whether gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits can be withheld without even initiating disciplinary proceedings? Manipur HC answers

In State of Manipur v. Kunjakishore Golmei, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 293, the Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul, CJ and Guneshwar Sarma, J., had to deliberate whether gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits payable to a retired employee can be withheld without even initiating disciplinary proceedings, or on the mere filing of a First Information Report without following it up with a charge-sheet; in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court held that as per Rule 9, it is only after the conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings and the rendering of a finding of guilt therein against a Government servant that the question of withholding his/her gratuity and pension would arise.

Every individual enjoys the right of unfettered choice in so far it relates inter alia to his or her name; Manipur HC reiterates

In K.S. Lenminthang v. Board of Secondary Education, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 472, Siddharth Mridul, C.J. and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui, J., while considering a petition seeking a direction to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur to process petitioner’s name change application as well as to declare the byelaws relating to change of name as ultra vires the Constitution; reiterated that every individual enjoys the right of unfettered choice in so far it relates inter alia to his or her name and the law enables such an individual to control freely for all times the freedom to lawfully express their identity in the manner of their liking. In other words, the extent byelaws cannot preclude the petitioner from seeking to change his name as he deems-appropriate. The right so to do is embodied in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The jurisdiction of the Trial Court whilst exercising power under Section 397 of the CrPC is limited: Manipur HC

While deciding R. Maringchan Maring v. State of Manipur, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 127, the bench of Siddharth Mridul, CJ., considered issues surrounding law on charge; the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court; and the powers exercisable by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction whilst dealing with an order on charge.

“Cases of direct evidence, on the other hand, are as plain as the nose on one’s face. Whatever one perceives with any of his physical senses is direct evidence and every other piece of evidence is circumstantial”.

Chargesheet filed without prosecution sanction order cannot be treated as an incomplete chargesheet: Manipur HC

In State of Manipur v. Lhaineikim Lhouvum, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 247, the Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul, CJ and Guneshwar Sarma, J., reiterated the view taken by Supreme Court in Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 543, wherein it was stated that whether the sanction is required or not under a statute, is a question that has to be considered at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not during inquiry or investigation. There is a marked distinction in the stage of investigation and prosecution. The prosecution starts when the cognizance of offence is taken. It is also to be kept in mind that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender.

‘To sexually violate innocent child within filial relationship descends on different path of depravity’: Delhi HC convicts father and friend under S. 377 IPC

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.

Failure and non-supply of legible/translated copies of documents despite a request renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law

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.

Policy of ‘one Bar, one vote’, ‘one person, one chamber and one court complex’ to be incorporated in Rules of all Bar Associations across Delhi

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.

Senior citizens entitled to institute application seeking eviction of son/ daughter or other legal heir on grounds of ill-treatment or non-maintenance

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.