Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling by quashing the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order that had directed a separate trial for Haryana Congress MLA Mamman Khan solely on the basis of his political office in the 2023 Nuh violence case, where six people were reportedly killed. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, with Justice Mahadevan authoring the judgment, held that while the expeditious disposal of cases involving public representatives is desirableāas emphasized in the 2023 ruling of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of Indiaāit cannot justify deviating from legal norms to deny a legislator the right to a joint trial when such a trial is permissible under the law. The court observed that segregating Khanās trial based solely on his status as a sitting MLA, without any legal or factual necessity, amounted to arbitrary classification, undermining the integrity of the criminal justice process and violating the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14. The court further noted that this action also infringed upon Khanās right to a fair trial under Article 21, as the right to a speedy trial cannot be secured at the expense of fairness.
The case arose from the 2023 Nuh violence, where Mamman Khan, along with other co-accused, was booked for allegedly instigating the violence stemming from the same transaction, leading the trial court to order a separate trial, a decision later upheld by the High Court. Khan challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the segregation was unjustified. The Supreme Court found the lower courtsā reasoning flawed, pointing out that there were no distinct facts, the evidence was inseverable, and no prejudice to Khan had been demonstrated to warrant a separate proceeding. The bench emphasized that under Section 223 of the CrPC, a joint trial is appropriate when offenses form part of the same transaction, as the evidence against Khan was identical to that of the co-accused, and separate trials would necessitate recalling the same witnesses, resulting in duplication, delay, and the risk of inconsistent findings. The court criticized the High Court for affirming the segregation order without evaluating whether the factual circumstances justified such a step under Section 223 CrPCās discretionary framework, oncluding that the decision lacked any legally recognized groundāsuch as distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudiceāand was unsustainable.
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that all accused stand equal before the law, and preferential segregation based on political office militates against the equality principle enshrined in Article 14. The bench highlighted that the prolonged pendency of such cases cannot justify overriding procedural safeguards, stating, āMost importantly, the appellantās status as a sitting MLA cannot, by itself, justify a separate trialā¦ While the right to speedy trial is an essential facet of Article 21, it cannot be secured at the cost of fairness.ā The court further elaborated that separate trials would lead to procedural complications, as evidence from one trial cannot be imported into another, potentially causing miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the trial court with a directive to conduct a joint trial of Khan alongside the co-accused, ensuring compliance with legal standards.
To provide clarity on joint trial principles, the Supreme Court laid down five key propositions: first, separate trials are the default rule under Section 218 CrPC, with joint trials permissible only when offenses form part of the same transaction or meet conditions under Sections 219ā223 CrPC, subject to judicial discretion; second, the decision for joint or separate trials should be made at the outset with cogent reasons; third, the paramount considerations are whether a joint trial would prejudice the accused or cause delay/wastage of judicial time; fourth, evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used in another, risking procedural issues in bifurcated trials; and fifth, an order of conviction or acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible, with interference justified only upon proof of prejudice or miscarriage of justice. This ruling reinforces the equality of all accused before the law, curbing preferential treatment based on political status, and aligns with the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay precedent on expediting legislator cases while prioritizing procedural integrity over administrative convenience, likely influencing future trials involving public figures where joint proceedings are legally viable.
Case Details: Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana | SLP (Crl) No. _ of 2025 (arising from the Punjab & Haryana High Courtās order)
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 