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.