Manipur govt didn't comply with High Court directions to curb violence: Former Justice Siddharth Mridul interview [Part II]

Having spent over 15 years as a High Court judge, Justice Siddharth Mridul regrets one thing: how the office placed constraints on his freedom of speech, something he clearly holds very dear..And so, in this free-flowing conversation with Bar & Bench's Debayan Roy, he bears all.In Part I, he had spoken about the controversy his former colleague Justice Yashwant Varma find himself embroiled in, and how the video released by the Supreme Court may have done more harm than good.In Part II, he speaks about what ails the legal profession, how the Manipur government failed to implement the High Court's orders to maintain peace and order in troubling times, Umar Khalid's continued incarceration, his love for Urdu shayari, and more..Edited excerpts follow..Debayan Roy: How do you look back at your journey on the Bench? Was it fulfilling?.Justice Mridul: In one word - fondly. It was productive for the most part. There are, of course, parts of my stint as a judge which I would like to forget. I have forgotten most of the negative aspects of being a judge, how circumscribed you feel on occasion, particularly when it comes to expressing yourself freely. But on the whole, it's been a wonderful journey..DR: What were the negative aspects?.Justice Mridul: As a judge, you do not have the freedom of choice in relation to what you would like to hear. I'll give you an example. One of my former colleagues and a comrade-in-arms, Dr S Muralidhar, was arguing an appeal in relation to the bomb blast that took place in Bombay and he was appearing for one of the convicts. I called them and I said, I envy you because that's what I'd like to do. Go and represent convicts who are facing death sentences.When you are on the Bench, the kind of matters you want to hear are not always listed before you. So in that sense, you rely on your colleagues to hear those matters and determine them. The matters which really leave an indelible mark on you are few and far between. The frequency of those issues that interest you increases as you spend more time on the Bench because most significant matters come before you only as you attain seniority. The first couple of years, you do matters in disciplines of the law that you may have had no interest in and you would have had no experience in, for the most part. You get an opportunity to examine every law at some length, you do a deep dive into every legislation. But there are some legislation and certain kinds of matters that you prefer instinctively and naturally. So for me, I've always been deeply attached to human rights. Those matters came my way much later in my tenure. I believe those are the matters that I remember most fondly, regardless of the decision..DR: You mentioned being a judge was not your choice..Justice Mridul: Initially, when the Collegium was kind enough to consider me for elevation, I had been designated (as a Senior Advocate) and I was not very keen to assume the role of a judge. There is some history to it. My father was a judge of the Bombay High Court in the 70s. He was on the Bench for precisely a little over 2 years, before he quit and shifted to the Supreme Court to join the Bar once again. So, I had my reservations about being on the Bench and I did know that it curbs your natural instincts. You are required to conform. You can't express yourself freely. The saying is that you have to “run like a horse and live like a hermit.” That's not an issue. The issue is that you have to be circumscribed about everything that you can say on most current issues as well. That was not something I was particularly comfortable doing. I can practice detachment, but I cannot practice apathy and indifference. There is something that happens around you on a regular basis and you can't express an opinion because it might come up before you as a judge. There are certain self-imposed restrictions that you have to strictly adhere to and I've always been somebody for free speech and plain speaking..DR: After your father's sudden demise, you had to bear your family's responsibilities early on in life. How did this hardship shape you for the future?.Justice Mridul: All of a sudden, reality hits you. So long as you have someone in your family protecting you from the world and looking after all your needs, you dont think in terms of putting food on the table. And when the sole breadwinner of the family passes away at a very young age (54), you are not prepared to deal with it. But it's something you have to do, and a large number of people have done it. All of us have had to reinvent ourselves, go back to the drawing board and learn about life the hard way.But it cuts both ways - if my father hadn't passed away, I possibly wouldn't experience the grind and the vicissitudes of life. When you're thrown into the deep end, you learn how to swim quicker..DR: Before your elevation as a judge, you were an active member of the Delhi Bar Council. How do you think it is faring now, in light of the constant protests?.Justice Mridul: The Bar Council seems to have forgotten the purpose behind which they were set up. They were not set up just to secure the interests of lawyers, they are also required to discipline lawyers and instruct them on how to conduct themselves. With the passage of time, this hasn't happened. They have digressed to doing things that are not strictly within their domain. It is required to act as a check on the judiciary as well. As judges, we would rather face just criticism from the Bar, because it the Bar that judges the judges. That doesn't seem to happen very often. We have reduced our role as lawyers to just transacting professional work...It's all about business now; not about running a tight ship and ensuring that the small man is protected...Lawyers are doing exceedingly well financially, but the profession isn't doing well. They are far more mercenary in their approach than they used to be when I joined the Bar. Of course, the previous generation was far more committed to the greater good..DR: After almost 15 years as a Delhi High Court judge, you took charge as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court at a time when the State was burning. What measures did the High Court take to ensure that the State authorities were keeping the peace?.Justice Mridul: The differences that led to the ethnic strife in Manipur have been there for a very long time, owing to a number of factors. The hill tribes are all categorised as Scheduled Tribes, they have certain benefits which the plains people do not have because they fall in the general category...The other issue has been with regard to the ownership of land in the hills. Geographically less than 10% of the land in Manipur is the plains and it is inhabited by the Meiteis, by and large. So the Meiteis, who comprise almost 50% of the population, live in a land area which is less than 10%, and they can't acquire land in the hills. On the other hand, the Kukis, who are just about 14-15%, can acquire land, not just in the hills, but in the plains as well. So that has been a sore point - the bone of contention between the plains people and the hill people. The judgment that you're alluding to, which directed the government to consider according Scheduled Tribe status to the Meiteis, was the match that lit that powder keg. Manipur, unfortunately, does not have industry, so the employment is limited..There is also hyper-inflation. Most bare necessities have to be flown into Manipur from other states, making them frightfully expensive. They don't have enough money, and on the other hand, everything is very expensive. All of this has unfortunately given rise to the current situation in Manipur..DR: How did you ensure that you know the peace returns to the valley?.Justice Mridul: Well, I haven't ensured that. I fervently wish and pray that peace returns to the valley. We did whatever we could and we ensured that the executive was constantly reminded to uphold the rule of law and make sure that ordinary people went about their lives in a safe and secure environment..DR: What was the government’s response to the orders passed by the court? Were the orders really followed in letter and spirit?.Justice Mridul: The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Our orders were to make sure that they would restore law and order. But that didn't happen. So evidently, for reasons best known to the executive, they were unable to come to terms with the sporadic violence that erupted and continues to erupt in Manipur. I don't think I should comment on whether it was deliberate or the attitude was cavalier. But the end result is that they were unable to restore peace and maintain law and order. So in that sense, I can't say that they complied with our directions in total. There were large gaps..DR: Your elevation as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court was delayed for months. Some media reports also suggested that it was because the State government held up your appointment. Is there any truth to this matter now?.Justice Mridul: I was recommended to be elevated as Chief Justice on July 4, 2023. Eventually, I assumed office only on the 20th of October of the same year. So there was a delay. I wouldn't hazard a guess on who sat on my files and for what reason my appointment was delayed. I don't wish to get into that. In any case, I'm not privy to it.There was a delay and I was very keen to assume my office, but how did it happen and why did it happen, I am not privy to, and it did not affect my functioning at all, not in the least. We have to insulate ourselves from the political process and from executive action or inaction..DR: At the Delhi High Court, you headed a bench that granted bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwhal and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the Delhi Riots case in June 2021. The Bench also made some remarks calling into question the probe into the riots. In October 2022, a Bench headed by you denied bail to Umar Khalid? What changed? .Justice Mridul: Umar Khalid is still a sub-judice, so I will not comment on him. Every case is necessarily determined in the facts and circumstances antecedent and attendant. So the roles ascribed to the applicants before you, particularly in this case, were vastly different. The roles ascribed to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwhal and Asif Iqbal Tanha were very different from the role assigned to Umar Khalid in the charge sheet. Both these matters came up before us immediately after the Delhi riots. It was a very elaborate chargesheet containing allegations against these two different sets of people and the allegations were not the same. The allegations against Khalid were different. The role ascribed to him was different..DR: Umar Khalid and over a dozen other accused have been in jail for over five years now in the case, and the trial hasn't even started. Why do you think that is?.Justice Mridul: I can't comment on that, but I can tell you that the Supreme Court has subsequently in a number of matters, including the path-breaking judgment in KA Najeeb, has said that you cannot be incarcerated without being convicted, when the trial will take indefinitely long. The Supreme Court has in those cases enlarged the undertrials on bail. It is not for me anymore to determine their applications.As a lawyer, I would argue that they ought to be released..DR: Why are courts reluctant to grant bail to the accused even after five years?.Justice Mridul: I don't think they are reluctant to grant bail to the undertrials. In the recent past, the courts have come down very heavily on keeping somebody in judicial custody without expediting trial...A large number of Supreme Court benches have taken the view, and I completely subscribe to it - that don't unnecessarily incarcerate a man unless you establish guilt. There shouldn't be any pre-conviction detention for long periods of time. During the stage of investigation it is understandable. Beyond that, if the trial is delayed for reasons completely beyond the control of the accused, you should not incarcerate them indefinitely..DR: Do you think the stringent bail conditions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should be relaxed?.Justice Mridul: I can't legislate. The courts cannot legislate. Section 43D(5) of UAPA (which imposes conditions on grant of bail) is what it is. Whether I agree with the stringent conditions that Section 43D(5) imposes is a different matter. I may not agree with the provision, but it is not for me to question that provision in my previous avatar as a judge..DR: But now, you can speak freely..Justice Mridul: That is precisely the reason why I am talking to you (laughs). My sense is that it is harsh. That's my belief. We have had laws earlier, including TADA [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act], where the conditions imposed on grant of bail were equally onerous. It was virtually impossible for the accused to obtain bail. Speaking for myself, I think they are a little too stringent, which is why the courts have now begun to interpret it a little differently than they did in Ghulam Mohammad’s case, or Zahoor Ahmad Vatali’s case. We have moved on since then and the courts have started taking a slightly different view..DR: Now you're speaking as a senior lawyer, but when you're on the Bench deciding a case using the contours of law, how difficult is it to keep out your personal perception of a legislation?.Justice Mridul: It's not just difficult, it's absolutely necessary. The entire purpose of taking an oath of office would be completely defeated if we were to interpret the law contrary to its very letter and spirit. So till the time that a legislation is found to be ultra vires the Constitution, we have no choice......You take a considered call on how you interpret every provision of every enactment that is a part of a case before you and we took a view. We took a view in the Devangana Kalita case and the challenge against that view was eventually dismissed..DR: The Delhi High Court was criticised for not granting bail to the political opposition in the Delhi liquor policy cases. What is your take on how that was handled?.Justice Mridul: I have no idea. I don't believe that case was listed before me. For the most part of my tenure as a judge, I did not follow the media or read any newspapers. I had nothing to do with that case and I had no interest in making myself aware or keeping myself up to date on what was happening. I'm completely unaware of what the case was and who are the persons charged etc..DR: You are very well known among the Bar and your colleagues on the Bench for your love for the Urdu language and shayaris. We have heard you recite Ghalib in court proceedings as well. Where does that love come from? Who is your favourite shayari? .Justice Mridul: The fact is I am a Delhi-wala. This city gave birth to Rekhta and I became familiar with Urdu shayari and Farsi shayari because of my maternal grandmother, who could speak, read and write both languages. When I was younger, I didn't quite follow, but with the passage of time, my love for Urdu poetry grew. I quoted a shayar in one of my judgments; I won't tell you who is my favourite shayar because there are so many of them. I can't pick any of them, but the one that I quoted in my judgment was Kaif Bhopai. He wrote,“janāb-e-'kaif' ye dillī hai 'mīr' o 'ġhālib' kīyahāñ kisī kī taraf-dāriyāñ nahīñ chaltīñ”.DR: Is there any shayari that sums up your judicial career?.Justice Mridul: I haven't quite thought about it. I quoted one, I think a couple of months before I was recommended to go to Manipur as Chief Justice, and that's a shayari by Ustad Ibrahim Zauq, which is:“in dinon garache dakkan mein hai badee qadr-e-sukhankaun jae zauq par dillee kee galiyaan chhod kar”So what happened was, immediately after the First War of Independence in 1857, all the court poets were invited to join the court of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Ustad Ibrahim, who was the court for the Mughals, said through this shayari that nowadays, every poet is being invited to go and join the court of the Nizam in Hyderabad, but who would want to leave Delhi? Which is why I am back here in Delhi.