The Supreme Court stated that uncomfortable statements or questions in court are not to be seen as humiliating; the court’s role is to uncover the truth.

The Supreme Court noted that it is the Court’s responsibility to uncover the truth, which may involve asking difficult questions and making suggestions that some might find uncomfortable. The Court was reviewing a case where the Petitioner alleged she faced humiliation and defamation in open court due to comments made by police about her marriage. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated, “The claim by petitioner no.1 that she was defamed by police statements and humiliated in court is completely misguided.”

The petitioners had submitted a Habeas Corpus petition to the Rajasthan High Court, claiming their mother was being held unlawfully by private individuals and that the police could not locate her. However, while the petition was ongoing, their mother returned home, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition as it was no longer relevant. The petitioners argued that during the hearing, police officials claimed a divorce had been granted in relation to Petitioner no. 1’s marriage, and that her husband had remarried. She asked the High Court to require the police to clarify these statements, but the petition was dismissed before that could happen. A Review Petition was also turned down. The petitioners then filed a miscellaneous application for an explanation from the police, which was also dismissed by the contested order.

The Petitioner contended that she was humiliated in open court during the Habeas Corpus hearing and believed the High Court should have sought an explanation from the police officials involved.

The Bench found the Petitioner’s complaint to be misguided, stating they could not see how the alleged statements made in the High Court caused any embarrassment to the petitioner. They noted, “In court, many statements and questions can make someone uncomfortable, but not all of them can be seen as humiliating. The Court’s role is to uncover the truth, which may require asking difficult questions.”

Additionally, the petitioners had approached the High Court claiming their mother was unlawfully detained. The case was resolved when their mother returned home, leading to the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. The Bench concluded that there was nothing more to address, and the later review petition, miscellaneous application, and current petition were also misguided. “The petitioners represented themselves and made unusual requests that this Court cannot approve,” the Bench stated while dismissing the Petition.

Cause Title: Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 196)