Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, retiring from the Delhi High Court, marked his departure by reflecting on the complexities he faced during his tenure as law secretary to both the Central and Delhi governments. His career was highlighted by the significant challenges that stemmed from the ongoing political friction between these two entities.
In his farewell address, Justice Mendiratta shared insights from his extensive career, particularly during his term as the Delhi government’s law secretary. He described these times as filled with “extreme political challenges,” especially during the controversial assault case involving former Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash. “The tenure was full of challenges owing to political differences between the Central and state governments,” he recalled.
A full court farewell reference celebrated his over three decades of service in the judiciary. Justice Mendiratta emphasized that judicial efficiency should not be solely measured by the number of judgments pronounced. He argued that justice in several cases required adequate time allocation, and rushing judgements could neglect complex legal questions, causing delays in deserving cases.
“The targets for disposal are set for judicial officers, but the efficiency of a judge cannot be solely assessed on the number of judgments pronounced,” Justice Mendiratta stated. He also expressed his concern for the district judiciary, urging Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya to approach these cases with compassion to prevent any injustice.
Justice Mendiratta’s tenure was notable for his calm demeanor and commitment to thoroughness, attributes that Chief Justice Upadhyaya highlighted during the farewell. “He offered patient hearings to parties irrespective of the cases and his temperament on the bench always confined his opinions to his judgments,” praised Chief Justice Upadhyaya.
Among Justice Mendiratta’s significant contributions were several key rulings, including directives to protect the identity of minor rape victims during medical procedures and observations on the severe social implications for individuals falsely accused of child sexual abuse. He also ruled on the limits of political parties’ influence over print media for political purposes.
