Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS

Home / Important Personalities

Important Personalities

Siddhartha Mridul

    «    »

Who is Justice Siddhartha Mridul?

Justice Siddhartha Mridul was appointed as the 7th Chief Justice of Manipur High Court. He was born on 22nd November 1962. He also practised as an advocate and Judge of Delhi HC.

How was the Career Journey of Justice Siddhartha Mridul?

  • He graduated in 1983 from Hindu College, University of Delhi with a B.A. Hons. in History.
  • He completed a bachelor's degree in law in 1986 from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
  • He enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi on 24th July 1986.
  • He practiced as an advocate specializing in:
    • Writ and Writ Appellate Jurisdictions
    • Civil Original and Appellate Jurisdictions
    • Company Jurisdiction
    • Criminal Jurisdiction in the Delhi HC.
  • He extended legal practice to:
    • The Bombay HC
    • The Karnataka HC
    • The Rajasthan HC
    • Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal
    • Company Law Board
    • Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction
    • Debt Recovery Tribunal
    • National and State Consumer Dispute Redress Commissions at Delhi.
  • He was designated as Senior Advocate in May 2006.
  • He was elected as Member of the Bar Council of Delhi for two terms (1992-1998 and 1998-2003).
  • He was appointed by the Delhi HC as a Member in various committees, including:
    • Rehabilitation of children after the abolition of child labor.
    • Illegal construction in contravention of municipal byelaws.
    • Member of the Committee constituted to suggest, supervise, and implement measures for the efficient and hygienic functioning of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
  • He was appointed as Additional Judge of the Delhi HC on 13th March 2008.
    • He was made a Permanent Judge on 26th May 2009.
  • He took oath as Chief Justice of Manipur HC on 05th July 2023.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Siddhartha Mridul?

  • P K Dash v. Bar Council of Delhi (2016):
    • A division bench of Delhi HC consisting of Justice Siddhartha Mridul was hearing the case on One Bar, One Court.
    • The bench held that “All that the one bar one vote rule seeks to achieve is a commitment by each of its members that if they wish to vote in one of the associations of which they are members, they should choose which one”.
    • This rule would ensure that those with no commitment to Courts and Bar Associations where they do not practice law, ordinarily, do not vote and defeat or diminish the value of votes of genuine practitioners.
    • It also ensures that those with some connection with a Court and no one else are elected as office bearers of that association.
    • The one bar one vote principle in essence restores a balance in the voting rights of members of every Bar Association, who have hitherto been victims of indiscriminate "surge membership" gerrymandering like election practices in the past.
  • Shadab Khairi v. State (2018):
    • A division bench of Delhi HC consisting of Justice Siddhartha Mridul held that a senior citizen is entitled to institute an application seeking eviction of his son, daughter or other legal heir from his self-acquired property on the ground of ill-treatment and non-maintenance".
  • A v. State (2021):
    • The matter was related to Gang Rape of a minor by her father and one person in connivance with her father.
    • The court held 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”.
    • Court further said “Without at all appearing to be Biblical, crime in society is one thing; but crime within the closest confines of the family, adds to it the element of sin. Such acts must be dealt with the requisite level of severity”.
  • Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2022):
    • The court dismissed the bail plea of accused in this case convicted for Delhi Riots in 2020.
  • Sharafat Sheikh v. UOI (2022):
    • The Court in this case held that “If the detenue knew or understood English then nothing would prevent him from giving acknowledgment in English, rather he gave acknowledgment in Hindi and signed in English”.
      • Signing in English and writing and understanding English are two different things and it cannot be said that if one signs in English, therefore he has full understanding of the language.
    • The Delhi HC further held that mere signing of documents in English does not automatically translate to the detenue having a working knowledge of English so as to fulfill the mandate of Article 22(5).
      • Article 22(5) of Constitution: When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.