243 of BNSS

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.