Uncomfortable Statements Or Questions During Court Proceedings Can’t Be Misconstrued As Humiliating; Court's Duty To Reach The Truth Of Matter: SC
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the Petitioner claimed that she was humiliated in open court due to the statements made regarding her matrimonial life.
The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such an exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the Petitioner claimed that she was humiliated and defamed in open court due to the statements made by the police officials regarding her matrimonial life.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted, “The grievance of petitioner no.1, that she has been defamed by the statements of the police officials and was humiliated in open court, is totally misconceived.”
Factual Background
The petitioners had filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Rajasthan High Court alleging that their mother was in unauthorized detention of the private respondents and the police could not trace their mother. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners’ mother returned home and consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
As per the petitioners, during the course of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus petition, the police officials made a statement, asserting that a divorce decree had been passed concerning the marriage between Petitioner no. 1 and her husband and her husband had remarried. She requested the High Court to direct the concerned police officials to furnish a clarification explaining the veracity of such statements but by then the Petition was dismissed.
The Review Petition was also dismissed. The Petitioners had filed a miscellaneous application seeking an explanation from the police authorities. This miscellaneous application was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioner that she was humiliated in open court during the hearing of the Habeas Corpus petition and the High Court ought to have sought an explanation from the concerned police officials.
Reasoning
Terming the Petiitoner’s grievance as misconceived, the Bench could not understand how the alleged statements even if they were made before the High Court caused any humiliation to the petitioner.
“During court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some”, the Bench said.
It was further noted that the petitioners had simply approached the High Court, alleging that their mother had been unlawfully detained. A quietus was given to the case when their mother returned home and thus, the habeas corpus petition was disposed of. As per the Bench, thereafter, nothing was left in the matter and the subsequent review petition, miscellaneous application as well as the present petition filed by petitioners were misconceived.
“Before this Court, the petitioners argued in person and made unusual and unwarranted prayers, which cannot be granted by this Court…”, the Bench held while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 196)
