Justice Govind Mathur recently retired as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, a post he served for nearly three years.

During his tenure, Justice Mathur came to be known for his relief-oriented approach, passing many pro-human rights judgments.

Some of these include the quashing of the illegal detention of Dr. Kafeel Khan under the National Security Act, directing the Uttar Pradesh government to remove the "name-and-shame" posters of those who protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act, and more. In fact, many such cases were taken up by him suo motu.

In this interview with Bar & Bench, Justice Mathur shares his views on how the State authorities have been "ignoring" judicial orders, the system of virtual hearings, and his post-retirement plans.

[Watch video]

Edited excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Recently, the Allahabad High Court had imposed a partial lockdown in the State in view of the rise in COVID-19 case. The State government appealed against this order, which was stayed by the Supreme Court. Do you think the Allahabad High Court order amounted to "judicial overreach" or was it need of the hour?

Justice Mathur: I fail to understand what was the occasion for the State of Uttar Pradesh to not adhere to well-reasoned directions issued by the Allahabad High Court.

I don't know why the State government considers the judiciary as a rival. Judiciary is another face of the State. That order was not at all any effort to overreach and that order was very well reasoned order giving each and every detail.

It never imposed a blanket lockdown. It identified five cities where conditions were deteriorating on a daily basis.

The bureaucracy of the State of Uttar Pradesh doesn't accept the orders of the (High) Court.

Q: Various laws have been passed regulating religious conversion in many States including Uttar Pradesh. Do you think that these legislation pass the test of constitutionality?

Justice Mathur: It would not be appropriate to say anything about this, because I heard this matter.

The Bench, of which I was also a member, admitted the writ petition only after being satisfied that these provisions are in conflict with the fundamental rights.

I wanted to get the writ petition heard and decided at the earliest.

Q: What are your post-retirement plans?

Justice Mathur: I am very clear about it. I am not going to join any government assignment. Only exception is academic work at some University.

I think this retirement is a very good thing. If I were a lawyer, I would have been retiring at 80. I am fortunate enough to be a judge and retiring at the age of 62 years.

Certainly, I would be doing something, but that would be of my choice.

Q: What message do you have for young lawyers/students who are hesitating to enter the profession because of lack of job security or other reasons?

Justice Mathur: It is a field where if you work with commitment and honesty, then nobody can stop you. If you are a lawyer who is committed to do justice to clients, then money will come.

If a young man is asking for security, then it is better not to enter the field of law.

I have seen several lawyers from very humble backgrounds who ultimately became successful because of their commitment and honesty. I never thought about any employment after completing my law degree. Law for me meant being a lawyer and only a lawyer.