The Supreme Court of India ruled that uncomfortable questions in court are not humiliating. In Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, the Court dismissed claims of humiliation, emphasizing the judiciary’s duty to reach the truth through potentially distressing inquiries.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has held that uncomfortable questions posed during court proceedings cannot be misconstrued as humiliation. The judgment was delivered in the case of Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., where the petitioners alleged that they were humiliated in open court.
The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, dismissed the petition, emphasizing that courts have a duty to reach the truth, which may sometimes require uncomfortable inquiries.
The petitioners, Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria and another, initially filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Rajasthan High Court, claiming that their mother was unlawfully detained by private respondents.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana High Court Dismisses PIL To Make Karwa Chauth Compulsory For All Women
Despite filing missing person reports, the police were unable to trace her. However, during the proceedings, the petitioners’ mother returned home, leading the High Court to dismiss the Habeas Corpus petition on July 4, 2024, as infructuous.
The petitioners later alleged that statements made by police officials regarding Petitioner No. 1’s marital status during the proceedings caused them humiliation. However, their review petition and miscellaneous application were also dismissed.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
- Humiliation in Open Court – The petitioners claimed that statements about Petitioner No. 1’s divorce and her husband’s remarriage led to public humiliation and defamation.
- Duty of the Court in Proceedings – The Supreme Court examined whether judicial inquiries aimed at uncovering the truth could be considered humiliating or defamatory.
- Dismissal of Review and Miscellaneous Applications – The Court also addressed whether the Rajasthan High Court was obligated to entertain further applications after the Habeas Corpus petition had become infructuous.
After hearing the petitioners, who appeared in person, the Supreme Court found no merit in their claims. The Court ruled that the grievance of humiliation was “totally misconceived.”
The bench firmly stated:
“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.”
The Court emphasized that the judiciary’s duty is to ascertain the truth, and this process sometimes involves questions that may not be to a party’s liking. The bench further remarked:
“After all, 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 Supreme Court concluded that since the petitioners’ mother had already returned home, there was no remaining cause of action. As a result:
ALSO READ: SEBI Fines Anil Ambani’s Son Rs 1 Crore in Reliance Home Finance Case
- The review petition was deemed unnecessary.
- The miscellaneous application was found unwarranted.
- The present petition was dismissed as misconceived.
“The subsequent review petition, miscellaneous application as well as the present petition filed by the petitioners are totally misconceived,”
the Court stated in its final judgment.
This ruling sets a crucial precedent by affirming that judicial proceedings require inquiry, and mere discomfort does not amount to defamation or humiliation. It reinforces the responsibility of courts to seek the truth, even if it involves asking difficult questions.
Case Title – Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES