List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Uncomfortable Questions Posed During Proceedings
14-Feb-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has held that statements made in court and uncomfortable questions posed during proceedings cannot be considered public humiliation, as they are essential for uncovering the truth.
- The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Smt. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2025).
- The case involved a habeas corpus petition that was dismissed after Petitioner No.1 returned home, with police alleging she had divorced and remarried.
What was the Background of Smt. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors ?
- Smt. Dhanlaxmi urf Sunita Mathuria and another person initiated a Habeas Corpus petition before the Rajasthan High Court concerning their mother's alleged unauthorized detention.
- The petitioners had filed missing person reports regarding their mother's disappearance, but the police were initially unable to locate her whereabouts.
- During the pendency of the Habeas Corpus proceedings, police officials made certain statements before the High Court regarding Petitioner No. 1's matrimonial status, specifically asserting that:
- A divorce decree had been issued concerning Petitioner No. 1's marriage.
- Petitioner No. 1's husband had subsequently remarried.
- The Habeas Corpus petition was rendered infructuous when the petitioners' mother returned home, leading to its dismissal by the High Court on 04 th July 2024.
- Petitioner No. 1 subsequently filed multiple legal proceedings:
- A request for police clarification regarding their statements about her marital status.
- A review petition challenging the dismissal order dated 04th July 2024.
- A miscellaneous application seeking examination of previous orders and police explanation
- All subsequent applications were dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Supreme Court has determined that the allegation of defamation and humiliation in open court is wholly misconceived and without merit.
- The Supreme Court has established that statements and inquiries made during judicial proceedings, though potentially causing discomfort, do not inherently constitute acts of humiliation.
- The Supreme Court has affirmed that the judicial duty to ascertain truth necessitates the posing of questions and suggestions that may cause temporary discomfort to parties involved.
- The Supreme Court has noted that once the primary relief sought in the Habeas Corpus petition was rendered infructuous, no further cause of action remained for adjudication.
- The Supreme Court has determined that the subsequent legal proceedings, including the review petition, miscellaneous application, and the present petition, lack legal foundation.
- The Supreme Court has observed that the petitioners' submissions, made in-person, contained prayers of an unusual and unwarranted nature, rendering them non-maintainable.
What is Section 154 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
- Section 154 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)deals with indecent and scandalous questions in court proceedings.
- The core principle is that courts have discretionary power to prohibit questions they consider indecent or scandalous. However, this power isn't absolute - it's limited by the fundamental need to uncover relevant facts.
- The section creates a two-part analysis framework. First, the court must determine if a question is indecent or scandalous in nature. This involves evaluating whether the question violates standards of decency or propriety in court proceedings.
- The test isn't just about personal discomfort - it looks at whether the question genuinely crosses boundaries of acceptable judicial inquiry.
- Second, even if a question is found to be indecent or scandalous, the court must consider whether it relates to facts directly in issue or facts necessary to determine the existence of facts in issue. This creates an exception where even uncomfortable questions must be allowed if they are truly essential to the case.
- For example, in cases involving sexual offences, certain intimate questions may be unavoidable despite their sensitive nature. The court must balance the need to protect dignity against the imperative of justice.
- Questions that are merely intended to embarrass or harass can be forbidden, but those that are genuinely necessary to establish material facts must be permitted.
- This relates directly to the Supreme Court case you shared earlier. The court observed that uncomfortable questions during proceedings don't automatically constitute humiliation - they may be necessary parts of the truth-seeking process. Section 154 provides the framework for distinguishing between legitimate uncomfortable questions and genuinely improper ones.
- The section essentially codifies a principle: While courts should maintain decorum and protect dignity, this cannot come at the cost of preventing necessary factual inquiry.
- The key is determining whether a question, despite being uncomfortable or potentially scandalous, serves a legitimate purpose in establishing facts material to the case.
Civil Law
Limitation Period for the Execution of a Decree Granting Perpetual Injunction
14-Feb-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction there shall be no period of limitation.
- The Supreme Court held this in the case of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal (2025).
What was the Background of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick V. Ranajit Ghoshal Case?
- The original plaintiffs filed Title Suit seeking confirmation of possession or recovery of possession based on title, along with a permanent injunction against disturbance.
- The suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs in 1976, confirming their title and possession, and permanently restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession.
- Dissatisfied with the 1976 decree, the appellants (defendants) filed an appeal, but the details of its disposal are unclear, with the appellants claiming it was disposed of in 1980.
- In 2017, after approximately 40 years, the respondents (heirs of the plaintiffs) filed an Execution Case, claiming that the appellants were violating the permanent injunction by disturbing their possession of the suit property.
- The appellants filed written objections to the execution case in 2018, arguing that the suit was not maintainable, the decree was vague, and they had not violated the decree, as they had been in possession of the property since 1980. They also stated that the decree holders had never had possession of the property.
- The Executing Court rejected the appellants' written objections and proceeded with final arguments in January 2019. The appellants filed a revision application before the High Court, which stayed the proceedings in March 2019.
- Despite the stay, the Civil Judge passed an order on 4th September 2019 allowing the execution case ex parte, directing the appellants to be arrested and detained in civil prison for 30 days and their property to be attached.
- The appellants filed a revision application challenging the order, but the High Court dismissed the revision application in September 2019, affirming the lower court's decision and rejecting the appellants' claims.
- Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the appellants are now challenging the order in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Court first of all discussed the provisions related to arrest enumerated under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( CPC) .
- With regard to limitation period for execution of the decree the Court held that the proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act,1963 (LA) makes it clear that for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction there shall be no period of limitation.
- As per Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC where a judgment debtor disobeys a decree of injunction he can be dealt with under this rule by imprisonment or by attachment of property or by both.
- However, the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor willfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him. Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order.
- Hence, what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the subrule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude:
- That the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him.
- That person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has willfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for.
- The Court also discussed in this case as to what would constitute a jurisdictional error.
- The Court finally held that the executing Court should have been considerate and should have at least given one opportunity to the appellants before ordering their arrest.
- Thus, it was held by the Court that the order passed by the High Court is hence unsustainable in law.
What are the Provisions Related to Limitation Period for Execution of the Decree of Perpetual Succession?
- Article 136 of the LA states the limitation period for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court.
- The limitation period for the same is 12 years.
- The limitation period shall begin to apply:
- When the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place.
- It is also provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.
Family Law
Period of Limitation for Filing Appeal Against Decree Passed under HMA
14-Feb-2025
Source: Gauhati High Court
Why in News?
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema held that merely because the order is passed by a District Court, a larger period of limitation i.e. 90 days and merely because the order is passed by the Family Court, a lesser period of limitation of 30 days would be unreasonable and will not stand the test of equality.
- The Gauhati High Court held this in the case of X v. Y (2025).
What was the Background of X v. Y Case?
- The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the judgment dated 12th June 2024 and order dated 14th June 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court -2, Kamrup (Metro).
- The Applicant moved forward the following arguments:
- The delay was only 21 days and adequately explained in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the application.
- The appeal pertains to a judgment in a case for annulment of marriage.
- Though the judgment was passed on 14th June 2024, the certified copy was applied for on 15th June 2024.
- The applicant, residing in Meghalaya, could not collect the certified copy until 18th July 2024, as personal presence is required in Family Court matters.
- The learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India (2021), which suggests a lenient approach for minor delays.
- The arguments forwarded by the Respondent were as follows:
- The applicant suppressed material facts.
- The certified copy was applied for on 15th June 2024, but the required stamps and folios were only deposited on 18th July 2024, showing negligence.
- The limitation period starts from 12th June 2024, the date of the judgment, not from the expiry of the limitation period.
- Misleading statements were made in paragraph 14 of the application.
- Thus, the question before the Court was whether the delay should be condoned or not in the present facts.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Court laid down the following guidelines are to be considered while determining if the delay should be considered:
- The power vested upon a Court to exercise such jurisdiction is essentially a discretionary one. The natural corollary is that there has to be an application of a judicious mind by taking into consideration all the relevant factors.
- The relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration would include the conduct of the party as discretion can be exercised only by balancing the equities.
- The length / duration of delay and the explanation put forward are both relevant considerations for exercise of such discretion.
- The Court would generally proceed with a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach with such petition as substantial justice should not be allowed to be defeated by mere technicalities.
- At the same time, the Court would also not lose sight of the fact that a valuable right has accrued on the other party and such right should not be interfered with lightly. Therefore, though there may not be a requirement to seek a day-to-day explanation, the explanation for the delay should be a reasonable one which is acceptable to a man of ordinary prudence
- The Court concluded that in the present facts the delay of 21 days cannot be termed as inordinate.
- Further, there was another aspect that the Court considered which is the period of limitation for filing an appeal in case application is filed under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
- While Section 28 of HMA provides a period of limitation for filing appeals is 30 days whereas Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA) provides that period of limitation for filing appeal is 90 days.
- The Court observed that Family Courts are not available in all the districts and it is only in those districts where Family Courts are available that matrimonial disputes are adjudicated under the FCA.
- Where the Family Court is not available the Court of District Judge will adjudicate matrimonial disputes under HMA.
- The Court observed that in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) an identical period of limitation is required to be made applicable against all orders appealable under Section 28 of HMA vis-a-vis an order appealable under Section 19 of FCA.
- The Court held that merely because the order is passed by a District Court, a larger period of limitation i.e. 90 days and merely because the order is passed by the Family Court, a lesser period of limitation of 30 days would be unreasonable and will not stand the test of equality.
How did the Limitation Period for Filing Appeal Against Decree Passed Under HMA Evolve?
- Before the enactment of the FCA an appeal against a decree passed by the District Judge under the HMA would have to be filed under Section 28 of HMA.
- The period of limitation prescribed for such an appeal is 30 days.
- In the case of Savitry Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002), the Court held that:
- The limitation period to file an appeal (30 days) considering the distance, geographical conditions and financial conditions is insufficient.
- The Court was of the opinion that a minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing the appeal.
- Pursuant to the above judgment, Section 28 (4) of HMA was amended in the year 2003 and the period of limitation was extended from 30 to 90 days.
- However, as per Section 19 (3) of FCA the period of limitation for filing an appeal has been prescribed as 30 days. Due to the amendment discussed above there is an inconsistency on this aspect.