New Delhi: A controversy has emerged involving Justice (Retd.) Siddharth Mridul, former judge of the Delhi High Court and former Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, over allegations that he continued operating an LPG distributorship while serving in the judiciary. State-owned Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) has suspended the dealership, citing alleged violations of its distributorship agreement and the applicable code of conduct. The matter has now reached the courts.
According to the case records, Justice Mridul began his legal career as an advocate in the Delhi High Court in 1986. He was appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court in March 2008 and later took oath as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court in October 2023. He served in the constitutional judiciary until his retirement.
Documents cited in the matter indicate that an LPG distributorship granted by BPCL in 1984 continued to remain in Justice Mridul’s name throughout his judicial tenure. The distributorship, operating under the name Kitchen Flame, was reportedly renewed on multiple occasions. Records show that the agreement was renewed in 1995, 2005, 2010, 2015, May 2025, and again in September 2025, with the latest renewal remaining valid until August 2030.
According to the reports, the most recent distributorship agreement bears Justice Mridul’s photograph and signature. This has raised questions over whether maintaining an active commercial interest while serving as a constitutional court judge was consistent with accepted standards of judicial ethics. Judges are generally expected to avoid financial or business relationships that could give rise to actual or perceived conflicts of interest or undermine public confidence in judicial independence.
The matter reportedly came to light after a public complaint was filed in December 2025. Following the complaint, BPCL issued a show-cause notice to Justice Mridul on May 29, 2026. In the notice, the company stated that operating an LPG dealership while serving as a judge could amount to a breach of the distributorship agreement and the applicable code of conduct. He was asked to explain why the dealership should not be suspended.
According to the reports, BPCL did not receive a satisfactory response within the stipulated period. Consequently, the company suspended the Kitchen Flame LPG distributorship on July 6, 2026. The suspension subsequently became the subject of legal proceedings.
Earlier, Monika Yadav, wife of Deepak Yadav, who was managing the distributorship, had approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to BPCL to decide her application for transferring the proprietorship of the dealership in her name. The High Court directed the company to consider and decide the application within the prescribed time.
After the dealership was suspended, Monika Yadav again moved the Delhi High Court. She alleged that BPCL had deliberately failed to decide her application for transfer of proprietorship and had simultaneously stopped LPG supplies. Her petition challenges the company’s action and seeks appropriate relief from the court.
The controversy has surfaced at a time when issues relating to judicial accountability and standards of judicial conduct are under increased public scrutiny. Proceedings concerning the suspension of the dealership, the validity of the distributorship agreement, the alleged conflict of interest, and the rights of the parties involved are currently pending. The final outcome will depend on the findings of the competent court and the relevant authorities after examining the evidence, documents, and submissions made by all concerned parties.
