Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (Nuh riots case)

This case arose from large-scale communal violence that erupted in Nuh district, Haryana, on July 31, 2023, during a Vishva Hindu Parishad religious procession, resulting in six deaths and extensive property damage. Mamman Khan, a sitting Congress MLA from Ferozepur Jhirka, was named as an accused in two FIRs alleging rioting, dacoity, mischief by fire, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, citing Khan‘s status as an MLA and the Supreme Court’s directives in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for expeditious disposal of cases against legislators, ordered on August 28 and September 2, 2024, that a separate charge sheet be filed against him and his trial be segregated from that of 43 co-accused in FIR No. 149 and 28 in FIR No. 150. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this segregation on December 12, 2024. Khan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the offences arose from the same transaction and that joint trial was mandatory under Section 223 CrPC. The Supreme Court, in its September 12, 2025 judgment, set aside the segregation orders, holding that an MLA‘s political status alone cannot justify deviation from the statutory rule of joint trials, and remitted the case for a joint trial.

On September 12, 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside the trial court orders dated August 28 and September 2, 2024, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court‘s December 12, 2024 affirmation. The Court held that segregation was directed solely on account of Khan’s political office without any legally recognized ground such as distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice. It ruled that the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay judgment does not authorize deviation from mandatory legal norms governing joint trials. The Court also found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing police to file a separate charge sheet, as that discretion lies solely with the investigating agency. The Court quashed the direction for separate charge sheets and segregated trial, and remitted the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a joint trial of Khan along with all co-accused, while permitting the trial court to regulate proceedings for expeditious disposal without compromising procedural safeguards.

The central dispute was whether a sitting MLA‘s trial could be segregated from that of co-accused solely on account of his political status. The trial court justified segregation citing the Supreme Court’s Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay directions for expeditious disposal of cases against legislators and delays caused by non-appearance of certain co-accused. Khan contended that the offences arose from the same transaction with interlinked evidence, making joint trial mandatory under Section 223(d) CrPC, and that segregation violated Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to fair trial) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether segregation ordered solely because the accused is an MLA is legally sustainable.

The Supreme Court‘s judgment was widely hailed as a landmark reaffirmation of the constitutional principle of equality before law. Legal commentators emphasized that the ruling made clear that “equality before law is not a mere slogan” but a lived constitutional guarantee. The decision underscored that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience or political expediency, and that no person—whether a sitting MLA or an ordinary citizen—can be subjected to procedural disadvantage or preferential treatment without express legal justification. The judgment set a significant precedent for criminal procedure by clarifying that expeditious trial of legislators, while desirable, cannot override the statutory framework for joint trials or the fundamental rights of the accused. The case also drew public attention to the broader issue of communal violence in Haryana and the alleged involvement of political figures, with Khan separately being arrested and granted bail in some of the related FIRs.