List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently,  bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan  set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order directing a separate trial of Congress MLA Mamman Khan in the 2023 Nuh violence case. It held that offences arising out of the same transaction must ordinarily be tried jointly under Section 223 CrPC (now Section 243 BNSS), unless distinct and severable acts are involved. The Court ruled that no prejudice to Khan was shown, and a separate trial would lead to duplication of evidence and procedural complications. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025). 

What was the Background of Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025) ? 

• Mamman Khan, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Ferozepur Jhirka Constituency in Haryana, was implicated as one of the accused in two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered following large-scale communal violence in Nuh District on 31st July 2023. 
• The communal violence resulted in serious law and order disturbances, loss of lives, and extensive damage to both public and private property. Multiple individuals were named as accused in connection with offences including rioting, dacoity, mischief by fire, and criminal intimidation. 
• During the course of investigation, FIR No. 149 involved 43 accused persons while FIR No. 150 involved 28 accused persons. Joint proceedings commenced before the trial court initially for all accused persons together. 
• The prosecution's case was founded on an overarching conspiracy allegedly involving all accused persons. The charge sheet reflected a consolidated investigative approach based on common evidence including call detail records, electronic communications, video footage, witness statements, and forensic reports. The prosecution relied upon largely common witnesses and interlinked evidence against all the accused. 
• However, by orders dated 28th August 2024 and 2nd September 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh directed the Station House Officer to file separate charge sheets against Mamman Khan and ordered segregation of his trial from that of the co-accused. The segregation was ordered primarily on the ground that Khan was a sitting MLA and his case needed to be taken up on a day-to-day basis. 
• Pursuant to these directions, separate charge sheets were filed against Khan, charges were framed on 25th November 2024, and prosecution evidence commenced with some witnesses already examined. 
• Khan challenged the segregation orders by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions bearing CRM-M-Nos. 61515 and 61516 of 2024 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking quashing of the trial court's orders. The High Court dismissed both petitions by a common judgment dated 12th December 2024, upholding the segregation. 
• Subsequently, Khan preferred the present appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court reaffirmed that while Section 218 CrPC establishes separate trials as the general rule, Section 223(d) permits joint trials for different offences in the same transaction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial economy. 
• The trial court's suo motu segregation orders (28.08.2024 & 02.09.2024) based solely on appellant's MLA status, without prosecution application or prior notice, violated Article 21's procedural fairness requirements. 
•  Following Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court found the trial court erred by segregating the regularly appearing appellant instead of absconding co-accused, without recording findings on delay or prejudice, inverting the preference for joint trials in same-transaction cases. 
•  The segregation violated Articles 14 and 21, as all accused are equal before law regardless of political status, and preferential treatment based on MLA position contradicts equality principles while compromising fair trial rights. 
• The trial court improperly directed police to file separate charge sheets, as this discretion belongs exclusively to investigating agencies, while separate trials would cause evidence duplication and risk inconsistent findings. 
• Segregation without legally recognised justification (distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice) was legally unsustainable and violated Article 21's fair trial guarantee, being based on misapplication of expedition principles that don't override mandatory joint trial norms. 

What is Fair Trial guarantee Under Article 21?

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," has been judicially expanded to encompass the fundamental right to fair trial. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) transformed this provision from protecting mere physical existence to ensuring dignified life, making fair trial an essential component of personal liberty. 
• The right to fair trial under Article 21 encompasses twelve core principles that ensure justice for all parties. These include the adversarial trial system placing the burden of proof on prosecution, presumption of innocence derived from the Latin maxim "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat", and proceedings before an independent, impartial judiciary free from executive influence. The accused must be informed of charges through proper procedures provided in Sections 228, 240, 246, and 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
• Procedural safeguards mandate that trials occur in the accused's presence, evidence is presented openly, and defendants receive adequate legal representation including free legal aid under Article 39A. The framework protects against state abuse through provisions preventing illegal arrest (Section 50 CrPC), ensuring bail rights particularly for vulnerable groups, prohibiting double jeopardy, and Article 20(3)'s protection against self-incrimination. 
• The Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) emphasized that fair trial means proceedings before an impartial judge with a fair prosecutor in an atmosphere of judicial calm, free from bias or prejudice. Denial of fair trial constitutes injustice to the accused, victim, and society alike. 
• Contemporary challenges include judicial delays and case backlogs, addressed through constitutional remedies under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts). This right aligns with international standards including Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ensuring justice is both delivered and perceived fairly in India's democratic framework. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a wife's appeal against a divorce decree, holding that her persistent pressure on the husband to separate from his family, repeated public humiliation, verbal abuse, and filing police complaints amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court affirmed that such conduct causes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X v. Y CM APPL. 68819/2024. 

What was the Background of X v. Y CM APPL. 68819/2024? 

• The marriage between Puja Pasricha (wife/appellant) and Aishwarya Pasricha (husband/respondent) was solemnized on 27 March 2007 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A son, Aditya Pasricha, was born on 8th January 2008. Matrimonial discord surfaced soon after the marriage. 
• The husband alleged his wife subjected him to cruelty throughout the marriage. He claimed she was unwilling to live in a joint family setup and repeatedly pressurized him to partition family property and live separately from his mother and sister. The wife allegedly frequently absented herself from the matrimonial home, neglected household duties, and refused to share responsibilities. 
• According to the husband, the wife failed to develop cordial relations with his mother and sister, frequently misbehaved with them, and created scenes at social and professional gatherings, causing him humiliation.  
• In May 2007, despite prior intimation about a family function, the wife removed her Chudha at her spiritual guide's place without involving the husband's family, even though a Chudha Wadhana ceremony had been organized at his residence. 
• The husband further alleged his wife threatened to implicate him and his family in false criminal cases.  
• On 27 August 2009, following a quarrel requiring police intervention, he was compelled to temporarily shift to his wife's parental house. In June 2010, contrary to his wishes and family traditions, the wife performed their child's Mundan ceremony at her spiritual guide's place instead of at Tirupati Balaji as per his late father's wish. 
• On multiple occasions, including 10th June 2011 and 3 August 2011, the wife called police to the matrimonial home. Following the 3 August 2011 incident, the wife left with their minor child and has since been residing with her parents.  
• The husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on cruelty grounds. 
• The wife denied these allegations and counter-alleged harassment at the matrimonial home by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She claimed they interfered in her domestic life, humiliated her during pregnancy, denied her access to household resources, and pressurized her to conform to unreasonable expectations.  
• The wife also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• Both matrimonial cases were clubbed together with common evidence. The Family Court dissolved the marriage on cruelty grounds, prompting the wife's appeal before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court observed that persistent and pressurizing conduct by a wife to sever her husband's bonds with his family constitutes mental cruelty under matrimonial law.  
• The Court noted that while the mere desire to live separately is not cruelty, sustained pressure to alienate the husband from his family members certainly amounts to an offence under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• The Court observed that repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse constitute mental cruelty. The Court specifically noted instances where the wife publicly berated her husband at his workplace in the presence of colleagues and superiors, and behaved discourteously at official functions, causing significant embarrassment and placing the husband in awkward positions. 
• The Court observed that repeated threats and filing of police complaints against the husband and his family members constitutes one of the most obvious acts of cruelty which by itself would constitute grounds for divorce. The Court noted that such threats and acts of intimidation create an environment of fear and hostility, rendering cohabitation intolerable. 
• The Court observed that parental alienation, where one parent intentionally turns the child against the other parent, constitutes an extreme act of cruelty. 
• The Court noted that denying the husband and his family emotional and physical access to the child and imposing strict instructions that the child should not interact with paternal family members, amounts to cruelty of a singular nature. 
• The Court observed that the wife's conduct in unilaterally making decisions regarding religious ceremonies, such as removing her Chudha at her spiritual guide's place despite family functions being organized and performing the child's Mundan ceremony contrary to family traditions, demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the husband's role and family customs. 
• The Court observed that the established pattern of emotionally distressing conduct, when examined collectively, went well beyond the ordinary wear and tear of married life and constituted mental cruelty of such gravity that the husband could not reasonably be expected to endure it. The Court noted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the sustained pattern of pressure, humiliation, threats, and alienation by the wife. 
• The Court further observed that matrimonial disputes must be resolved with utmost expedition and that prolonged pendency defeats the legislative intent behind the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

How is Cruelty Recognised as a Ground for Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

• Definition: 
  • Cruelty means any matrimonial act causing pain, distress, or suffering - whether physical, mental, social, or economical. 
  • What constitutes cruelty depends on specific circumstances, time, place, and persons involved. 
  • No rigid formula determines cruelty; it varies case by case. 
• Legislative Development: 
  • Prior to 1976, cruelty was only grounds for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
  • The 1976 Amendment introduced cruelty as grounds for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia). 
  • Either spouse may seek divorce if the other party treated them with cruelty after marriage. 
• Hindu Marriage Act,1955  
  • Cruelty serves as both a ground for judicial separation (Section 10) and complete divorce (Section 13(1)(ia)) giving aggrieved spouses more comprehensive legal remedies than the earlier provision which only permitted separation without dissolving the marital bond." 
  • Section 13 : Divorce — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— 
    • (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or 
• BNS  
  • Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  • Previously it was Covered under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,1860  

Case Law 

• Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007) 
  • The Supreme Court held that both men and women are entitled to seek divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. The case established that mental cruelty inflicted by either spouse justifies grounds for divorce. 
  • Cruelty as a ground for divorce is comprehensive and covers both physical and mental abuse, with the legal framework designed to protect the dignity and rights of individuals within matrimonial relationships.