As Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur, Justice Mridul exercised the Court’s constitutional prerogative under Article 226 to the fullest and passed significant Orders and Judgments which would be cited as strong judicial precedents in the years to come.
By Yoihenba Dhruva Aribam
Exordium
Right from my days in the law school, it was always a matter of great excitement whenever the Supreme Court collegium recommends the name of the new Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur. This is because our High Court is one of the youngest High Courts in the country and the Chief Justice, being the head of the judiciary of the State of Manipur, is pivotal in shaping institution of judiciary in the State.
In July last year, when Justice Siddharth Mridul’s name was recommended by the collegium for appointment as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur, Manipur was going through unprecedented turmoil. Unlike on previous occasions, where news of the collegium’s resolution would be known to the legal fraternity of Manipur within minutes of its publication on the Supreme Court’s website, many advocates were unaware of the fact that Manipur would soon have a new Chief Justice and I was one of those. I only came to know of the collegium’s recommendation when I was browsing through an English daily at the High Court Bar, days later. In those days, accessing the internet was almost impossible and members of the bar including the Senior Advocates had no access to internet.
At that time, a blanket ban on all forms of internet services was imposed by the State government in all the districts of Manipur, purportedly, to curb widespread violence in the State of Manipur. Months later, Justice Mridul would preside over the Division Bench that would decide the legal sustainability of the internet ban imposed by the Manipur government.
Champion of Article 226
During his tenure as a Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Mridul authored myriad judgments, some of which, have far-reaching consequences on constitutional liberties. To say that Justice Mridul was a distinguished Judge of the Delhi High Court would be an understatement. He was a spokesman for personal liberty at the Delhi High Court.
As Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur, Justice Mridul exercised the Court’s constitutional prerogative under Article 226 to the fullest and passed significant Orders and Judgments which would be cited as strong judicial precedents in the years to come. He is a champion of Article 226 and the Constitution spoke through his Orders and Judgments. I shall delve into some of Chief Justice Mridul’s remarkable Orders and Judgments he passed during his tenure as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur.
The State of Manipur & Anr. v. N. Apabi Singh & Anr. (Writ Appeal No. 69 of 2023 with Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2023) – In this, the State was assailing the Judgment passed by the Single Judge which directed the State to regularize the services of certain contractual employees. The State had regularized the services of certain other contractual employees of the same department. Dismissing the appeals, Justice Mridul, speaking for the bench, observed that the said contractual employees were similarly situated as the employees whose services have been regularized. Reaffirming the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court held that although the State can take a policy decision on regularization of contractual employees, it is not open to the State to discriminate between one set of contractual employees and others, whilst regularizing contractual employees.
As regards the State’s contention that the said contractual employees were estopped from claiming regularization in view of the terms stipulated in their respective contracts, Justice Mridul in his trademark style observed “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”. Underscoring the cardinal principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, it was observed that if the incumbents regularized by the State could be relieved of the terms in their respective contracts, other similarly situated contractual employees are entitled the same treatment.
Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma & Ors. v. State of Manipur & Ors. (PIL No. 25 of 2023 and batch, Orders dated 6.11.2023 and 1.12.2023) – Hearing a batch of PILs challenging the legal sustainability of the ban on internet services imposed by the Manipur government, Justice Mridul, speaking for the bench, passed a series of continuing mandamuses which eventually led to the lifting of the 6-month long ban on mobile internet services in the State. I had the good fortune of appearing before Justice Mridul for two of the Petitioners in these batch of cases. Initially, the Court directed the State government to operationalize mobile internet services in in all those District Headquarters which have not been affected by violence. The Court went further to direct that even in the districts that are partially affected by violence, mobile internet services should be operationalized in those areas of the same district which are not affected by violence.
On 01.12.2023, Justice Mridul orally expressed a deep sense of dissatisfaction over the State’s callous approach towards the directions issued by the Court. He was unequivocal to the State in saying that the prolonged internet ban despite the improvement of situation in the State has impacted access to justice and the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State. He made it amply clear to the State government that the ban cannot continue further in peaceful areas of the State and the Court would not hesitate to exercise its constitutional prerogative should the State continue the ban.
On 03.12.2023, a day after Justice Mridul’s oral remarks in open Court, the people of Manipur breathed fresh air as the State finally put an end to the 6-month long ban on mobile internet services in the State except in adjoining areas between certain districts affected by violence.
Registrar General, High Court of Manipur v. State of Manipur Ors. (PIL No. 9 of 2015, Order dated 15.5.2024) – In 2015, the High Court had initiated suo motu proceedings to apprehend an absconding convict who was convicted for offences under the POCSO Act. Nearly a decade later, the law-enforcement agencies of the State had failed to nab the convict.
Perturbed by the indifference of the authorities, the Court directed the DGP, Manipur Police to locate the absconding convict and report his presence before the Court on the next date of hearing, failing which, the DGP was directed to be present before the Court to explain his inability to do so.
Manipur Lokayukta v. A. Rajendra Sharma & Anr. (WA No. 99 of 2023, Order dated 24.6.2024) – While hearing an appeal filed by the Manipur Lokayukta, it was brought to Chief Justice Mridul’s notice that office of the Manipur Lokayukta and its members were lying vacant. Deprecating the situation, the Court issued notice to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur for taking necessary steps in accordance with law to fill up the vacancies.
K.S. Lenminthang v. Board of Secondary Education, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 472 – In this, the Petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur for processing his name change application. Partly allowing the Writ Petition while relying on the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535, Justice Mridul observed “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 of India in terms of the decision in Jigya Yadav”
Oinam Oken Singh v. State of Manipur, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 272 – The Petitioner was seeking a Writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside an ex-parte interim Order passed by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Manipur in a non-payment case. It was contended by the Petitioner that the said Order stood vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice as the case in which the impugned interim Order was passed had been instituted through a Sub-Contractor who is related to the DLC who passed the impugned Order.
After examining the materials on record, the Court having satisfied with the contention of the Petitioner allowed the Petition by adhering to the established legal position that no one can be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). It was observed that the impugned interim Order was “manifestly and patently violative of the principles of natural justice and suffers inter alia from the vice of bias and favoritism”.
Slew of initiatives and reforms on the administrative side
Speaking at the National Conference of the District Judiciary (31.8.2024 – 1.9.2024), Justice Mridul remarked that meetings are held at regular intervals between the administrative side of the High Court and officials from the State administration. In these meetings, the High Court would provide a wish list to the State officials. However, the boxes in the list would hardly get checked. Nevertheless, Justice Mridul left no stone unturned towards strengthening judicial infrastructure and accelerating the e-Courts project.
Giving a boost to judicial infrastructure, three Court buildings/complexes were inaugurated during Justice Mridul’s tenure as Chief Justice – a G+3 Annexe Building for the Court of District & Sessions Judge at Thoubal Court Complex, the District Court building at Tamenglong and the JMFC’s Court building at Mao.
A host of e-Courts’ initiatives took off under Justice Mridul’s leadership. To mention a few notable ones – e-Office, increase in manpower for the e-Sewa Kendras, increased e-filing facilities at the bar, mandatory e-filing in the sub-ordinate Courts, display boards outside the courtrooms, display board website, enhanced video-conferencing facilities for the courtrooms, renovation and tech integration of the High Court auditorium, various online portals to aid the efficiency of the administrative side and many more.
Justice Mridul was instrumental in laying the groundwork for setting up of a National Law University in Manipur. Speaking at the inauguration of the Annexe building at the Thoubal Court Complex in December last year, the Chief Minister of Manipur revealed that Justice Mridul had nudged him to establish an NLU in the State. In August this year, the Manipur Legislative Assembly passed the National Law University, Manipur Bill, 2024 and was signed into law by the Governor in the same month. Without Justice Mridul’s visionary leadership, a National Law University in Manipur would have remained a distant dream.
Thanks to the relentless efforts of Justice Mridul, The High Court of Manipur Gram Nyayalayas Rules, 2024 was notified in August 2024 furthering the cause of access to justice. Besides this, to address the shortage of judicial officers, the superannuatory age for judicial officers in Manipur was raised from 58 to 62.
Days before laying down his office, Chief Justice Mridul inaugurated the High Court Mediation Centre of the High Court of Manipur. He would have the rare distinction of having his name adorning the inauguration plaques of two mediation centres – Delhi Mediation Centre and High Court of Manipur Mediation Centre – established under the aegis of the High Courts of their respective jurisdictions.
Reaching Out to the Internally Displaced: A Healing Touch
Justice Mridul also spearheaded an initiative to visit relief camps in different districts of Manipur where the violence-hit Internally Displaced Persons were residing. During these visits, he interacted with the IDPs and gave a patient hearing to their grievances. He would direct the relevant Legal Services Authority to act on the grievances raised by the IDPs. Basic amenities were also handed over to the camp inmates. This initiative gave a healing touch to the strife-torn State. Many IDPs expressed joy and satisfaction over the Chief Justice’s visit.
Afterword
As Chief Justice of a State going through unprecedented violence, Justice Mridul did not mince words. When it came to constitutional liberties and access to justice, he spoke loud and clear through his judicial decisions. The State government’s indifference towards the judicial institution of the State irked him. In June this year, while speaking to a reputed national newspaper, he reproached the State government for their selective compliance of judicial mandates and indifference towards security and infrastructural demands.
Justice Mridul could be best described by the following lines of Khalil Gibran:
“If you choose silence, then be silent
When you speak, do so until you are finished
Do not silence yourself to say something
And do not speak to be silent
If you accept, then express it bluntly
Do not mask it
If you refuse then be clear about it
for an ambiguous refusal is but a weak acceptance”
It was always a spectacle to watch Justice Mridul conduct proceedings. When high-stakes matters or Criminal Appeals are heard, he would play the devil’s advocate, and it was quite a sight to witness his eloquence of the law. Enthusiastic young lawyers would flood the Chief Justice’s Court to listen to the devil’s advocate. He always encouraged young lawyers to argue matters. His introduction of appearance slips was a blessing for young lawyers. There is no gainsaying the bar will miss him, especially the young lawyers like me!
The jam-packed Courtroom No. 1 at the farewell reference for Justice Mridul stands as a testament to his humility and integrity and the profound impact he has had on the bar.
As Chief Justice Mridul demitted office after a tenure of 1 year, 1 month and 1 day, his judicial decisions will have a lasting impact and his contributions in shaping the institution of judiciary in Manipur will forever remain etched in the judicial history of the State of Manipur.
(The author is an Advocate practising in the High Court of Manipur. He obtained is LL.B from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi).