Justice Siddharth Mridul has accused the Manipur government of non-compliance with High Court orders, calling its response to the crisis a “troubling abdication of responsibility” that left the judiciary powerless amid spiraling unrest.
New Delhi, India
Former Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, Justice Siddharth Mridul, has publicly delivered a sharp rebuke of the Manipur government, calling out what he described as a “troubling abdication of responsibility” in the face of the ongoing ethnic violence in the state.
In an exclusive interview with Bar & Bench’s Debayan Roy, Justice Mridul detailed the High Court’s sustained efforts to restore peace and enforce constitutional order—efforts he says were met with “a complete lack of will” on the part of the executive. The retired judge underscored the stark limitations of the judiciary when executive authorities fail to act, lamenting what he called an “erosion of accountability.”
The Manipur Crisis: A Judiciary Left Powerless
Justice Mridul delved into the root causes of Manipur’s ethnic tensions, tracing them to long-standing grievances between the hill tribes—designated as Scheduled Tribes with affirmative action benefits—and the Meitei community, which resides in the plains and lacks similar status. He pointed to the sensitive issue of land ownership: Meiteis, who form nearly 50% of the population, are barred from owning land in hill areas, while Kuki tribes are allowed to purchase land in both regions.
The situation, he noted, deteriorated following a controversial High Court order directing the state to consider granting Scheduled Tribe status to the Meiteis. “That judgment became the flashpoint,” he said, in a state already suffering from economic fragility, unemployment, and sky-high inflation caused by a reliance on airlifting essentials.
ALSO READ: “No One Helped Us”: A Survivor’s Tale from Manipur
“The Proof of the Pudding Lies in the Eating”
When asked whether the judiciary’s interventions were effective in de-escalating the crisis, Justice Mridul was frank:
“Well, I haven’t ensured that. I fervently wish and pray that peace returns to the valley. We did whatever we could and constantly reminded the executive to uphold the rule of law.”
He did not mince words about the government’s failure to implement court orders:
“The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Our orders were aimed at restoring law and order. That didn’t happen. So evidently, for reasons best known to the executive, they were unable to deal with the sporadic violence that erupted—and continues to erupt—in Manipur. Whether that was deliberate or merely cavalier, I won’t speculate. But the end result is the same: the state failed to comply with our directions in full. There were large gaps.”
Delayed Appointment, Delhi Riots, and the Burden of Judging
Justice Mridul also reflected on the delay in his own appointment as Chief Justice—a gap of more than three months. While he acknowledged the delay, he refused to dwell on it, stating:
“I deliberately insulate myself from executive action or inaction. I don’t wish to speculate.”
The conversation then turned to his tenure at the Delhi High Court, particularly his decisions in the Delhi Riots cases. Justice Mridul declined to comment on the pending case of Umar Khalid but defended the granting of bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, emphasizing that bail jurisprudence hinges on the specifics of each case.
ALSO READ: A Doctor’s Plea for Justice and Dignity for Kuki-Zo People
He cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in KA Najeeb, reinforcing that courts must weigh the right to personal liberty, especially in instances of prolonged incarceration before trial.
On UAPA, PMLA, and Stringent Bail Laws
Now speaking with the freedom of a senior advocate, Justice Mridul expressed concern about the bail provisions under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The bail conditions under these statutes are harsh,” he said, adding that such laws often place an overwhelming burden on the accused to prove their innocence even before a trial begins.
