Equality Before Law Is Not a Mere Slogan: Supreme Court Quashes Segregated Trial of MLA Mamman Khan in Nuh Riots Case

“Segregation of a Legislator’s Trial Without Legal Justification Violates Article 21 and Undermines Rule of Law”: In a landmark ruling Supreme Court of India set aside the orders of a Nuh trial court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had directed a separate charge sheet and segregated trial for MLA Mamman Khan, an accused in the 2023 Nuh communal violence cases. Holding the segregation legally untenable, the Court declared that no individual can be subjected to procedural disadvantage solely due to the office they hold, and that equality before law must operate as a lived constitutional guarantee, not a hollow formality.

The judgment, authored by Justice R. Mahadevan, squarely held that the trial court acted suo motu, without notice or application, and passed an order of segregation purely because the accused was a sitting MLA, thereby infringing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and violating the statutory scheme under Sections 218–223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

“Natural Justice Cannot Be a Casualty of Political Expediency”: SC Raps Trial Court for Bifurcation Without Hearing

The appellant, Mamman Khan, is a sitting MLA from Ferozepur Jhirka, Haryana, and one of several accused in FIR Nos. 149 and 150, registered after the Nuh riots of 31 July 2023. The trial court, citing his status as a legislator and the delays caused by the non-appearance of some co-accused, directed the SHO to file a separate charge sheet against him and ordered a separate trial, claiming it was in compliance with the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay ruling of the Supreme Court, which had called for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs/MLAs.

However, the apex court categorically rejected this justification, noting: "The directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay aim to expedite trials involving legislators, but they do not authorise courts to compromise fairness, nor do they permit deviation from the established procedural framework of the CrPC.”

The Court noted with disapproval that no notice was issued to the appellant, nor was any application filed by the prosecution. The order of segregation was passed unilaterally and without affording any opportunity to be heard:

“The segregation was thus ordered suo motu, without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing. Such departure from fair procedure infringes Article 21 and cannot be cured by subsequent progress of trial.”

“Joint Trial Is the Rule Where Offences Arise from the Same Transaction”: SC Clarifies Scope of Section 223(d) CrPC

The bench held that the offences alleged against the appellant and the co-accused arose out of the same communal incident, involved common evidence, interlinked witnesses, and a shared conspiracy theory. Thus, by the mandate of Section 223(d) CrPC, a joint trial was not only permissible but obligatory.

The Court emphasized: “Where prosecution alleges one transaction and common evidence, joint trial is warranted to avoid multiplicity, inconsistent findings and procedural duplication.”

The trial court, instead of segregating the absconding or defaulting accused, chose to isolate the appellant who was appearing regularly, thus "inverting the settled principle" and causing procedural harm. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police to file a separate charge sheet:

“The discretion to file a charge sheet lies solely with the investigating agency. The trial court had no authority to mandate a separate challan.”

“Procedural Fairness Is the Soul of Criminal Jurisprudence”: Court Holds Segregation Order Arbitrary and Constitutionally Offensive

Critiquing the High Court's affirmation of the segregation, the bench observed that it failed to assess whether there was any factual or legal justification for deviating from the norm of joint trial. The court remarked that administrative convenience or political status cannot override legal safeguards:

“Segregating the appellant’s trial solely on account of his political office, in the absence of any legal or factual necessity, amounts to arbitrary classification and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process.”

On the issue of constitutional principles, the Court unequivocally stated: “Equality before law under Article 14 and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 require uniform application of legal procedures, irrespective of the individual’s public office.”

The Court also reaffirmed the principle from Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, observing that joint trials are preferable where offences arise from the same transaction, and segregation is permissible only when there is a clear risk of prejudice or demonstrable delay, neither of which was present in the case.

“Expedition Cannot Trump Fairness”: Supreme Court Restores Joint Trial and Sends Strong Message on Rule of Law

The judgment delivered a stern warning against using a public office as a ground to alter criminal procedure, stating:

“The appellant’s status as a sitting MLA cannot justify deviation from the settled principles of fair trial. The Court must not let administrative priorities undermine constitutional guarantees.”

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28 August 2024 and 2 September 2024 of the trial court, and the High Court’s decision dated 12 December 2024, were set aside. The Supreme Court quashed the direction to file a separate charge sheet and to segregate the trial, directing that the matter be remitted for a joint trial along with co-accused, as per the law.

The Court concluded: “The trial court shall be at liberty to ensure expeditious disposal of the trial, but only after hearing all parties and without compromising the procedural safeguards guaranteed under law.”

This ruling is a critical reaffirmation that judicial fairness, not political visibility, must guide criminal proceedings, especially when fundamental rights under the Constitution are at stake.

Date of Decision: 12 September 2025