Justice Siddharth Mridul's LPG business suspended by BPCL amid asset declaration row

• Justice Siddharth Mridul allegedly ran an LPG business through his judgeship for 16 years.
• BPCL suspended the dealership after allegations surfaced, citing violation of service rules.
• The controversy raises questions about post-retirement scrutiny of judges and patchy compliance with asset-disclosure norms.
• The episode highlights the need for stricter adherence to judicial codes of conduct and transparent asset declarations.

This long-standing arrangement has sparked concerns about how such deals can remain unaddressed for years until an unrelated family dispute brings them to light.

Justice Siddharth Mridul's alleged 16-year association with an LPG distributorship called 'Kitchen Flame' has raised questions about the persistence of commercial arrangements across high courts and chief justiceships. The dealership, which was suspended by BPCL on July 6, had been renewed multiple times since its inception in 1995, with the most recent renewal occurring just last year. This long-standing arrangement has sparked concerns about how such deals can remain unaddressed for years until an unrelated family dispute brings them to light.

The matter surfaced through a family dispute involving Monika Yadav, wife of the agency's former manager, who approached the Delhi High Court seeking transfer of the distributorship's ownership rights in her name. This led to a formal public complaint alleging that the actual owner of the LPG agency was a sitting judge, prompting BPCL to issue multiple show-cause notices citing violation of service rules.

The suspension of the dealership has raised questions about post-retirement scrutiny of judges and how patchy compliance with asset-disclosure norms can remain unaddressed for years. The episode highlights the need for stricter adherence to judicial codes of conduct, which bar judges from running businesses or holding positions that could create a conflict of interest or compromise judicial independence.

The controversy surrounding Justice Mridul's LPG distributorship has also raised concerns about the availability and transparency of asset declarations by judges. The Delhi High Court's website lists his entry as 'No file uploaded,' while the Manipur High Court's website carries no data on judges' asset declarations at all. This lack of transparency has sparked questions about whether Justice Mridul's asset declarations, required to be public under the RTI Act and a Delhi High Court Full Bench decision, were ever made available online.

Justice Mridul's response to these allegations has been that 'the website should have' his asset declaration, but that he had kept the original with the Chief. This lack of clarity has only added to the concerns about the transparency and accountability of judges' financial dealings.

The episode highlights the need for stricter adherence to judicial codes of conduct and the importance of transparent asset declarations in maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

The suspension of Justice Mridul's LPG distributorship has set a precedent for post-retirement scrutiny of judges. The episode raises questions about how commercial arrangements can persist across high courts and chief justiceships without being flagged, and how patchy compliance with asset-disclosure norms can remain unaddressed for years.

The case also highlights the need for stricter adherence to judicial codes of conduct, which bar judges from running businesses or holding positions that could create a conflict of interest or compromise judicial independence. The episode serves as a test case for judicial accountability and transparency, and whether the judiciary's own oversight mechanisms will choose to examine the underlying conduct.

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the judiciary and its relationship with the public. It remains to be seen whether the dealership is eventually terminated altogether and whether the judiciary's own oversight mechanisms will take action against Justice Mridul.

This development highlights the need for judges to strictly comply with asset-disclosure norms and judicial codes of conduct, which bar them from running businesses or holding positions that could create a conflict of interest or compromise judicial independence. Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for potential precedents set by this case in relation to post-retirement scrutiny of judges.

Source: Original reporting via India Today