Who is Justice Siddharth Mridul? 

Justice Siddharth Mridul is the son of Late Justice Pushp Raj Mridul. He completed his schooling from Army Public School and got his law degree from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of law, University of Delhi.  

How was the Career Journey of Justice Siddharth Mridul? 

• Justice Siddharth Mridul enrolled himself in the Bar Council of Delhi on 24th July 1986.  
• He was later appointed as the Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 13th March 2008. 
• He was elevated to Permanent Judge of the Delhi High Court on 26th May 2009. 
• The Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Siddharth Mridul for the position of Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur on 5th July 2023. 
• After three months of deliberation, the Ministry of Law and Justice approved the recommendation and notified his appointment on 16th October 2023. 
• Justice Siddharth Mridul took oath as the 7th Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur on 20th October 2023.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Siddharth Mridul? 

• Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Manipur (2023) 
  • The Division Bench of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui directed the Government of Manipur to produce the original file containing deliberations and decisions of the Review Committee regarding the restoration of internet services in the Greater Imphal Area. 
  • The Bench ordered the State to inform the Court about the feasibility of restoring internet services in the Greater Imphal area immediately. 
  • The Court allowed the State to continue with restrictions on internet services only if the competent authority deems it necessary and expedient in the interest of national security or public order. 
• State of Manipur v. Lhaineikim Lhouvum (2024) 
  • The Court in this case reiterated the principle established by the Supreme Court in Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency (2023). 
  • The Court held that the necessity of sanction under a statute is a matter to be considered at the time of taking cognizance of the offence, not during the inquiry or investigation stages. 
  • The Court emphasized that there is a clear distinction between the stages of investigation and prosecution, and cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offender. 
• Neeraj Varshney v. Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (2022)  
  • The case concerned a criminal writ petition challenging a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). 
  • The Court granted the detenu's prayer and set aside the detention order. 
  • The Court held that the Detaining Authority failed to provide the detenu with translated and legible documents detailing the grounds for his detention, violating procedural requirements. 
• Sharafat Shiekh v. UOI (2022)  
  • The detenue in this case sought quashing of his detention order, citing a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 
  • The Court set aside the detention order, ruling that it violated constitutional mandates. 
  • The reason for the decision was that the detenue was illiterate, and the detention order was not explained to him in Hindi or a vernacular language which he understood.