Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlw / 301U / 2026Islam Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:17927]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026
1. Islam Khan S/o Shri Ajeej Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/
o.basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Bay Khan S/o Shri Kabal Khan, Aged About 33 Years,
R/obasanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
3. Subhan Khan S/o Shri Sadak Khan, Aged About 71 Years,
R/obasanpeer Juni, Bhagu Ka Gaon, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Rane Khan S/o Shri Jangi Khan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Basanpeerjuni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5. Basir Khan S/o Shri Lukaman Khan, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
6. Jakar Khan S/o Shri Bhage Khan Khan, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
7. Hasiyat W/o Shri Gulam Khan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
8. Tija W/o Shri Adat Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Basanpeer Juni,jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
9. Hura W/o Shri Ramjan Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
10. Jama D/o Nure Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Basanpeer Juni,jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Ofhome, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Range Jodhpur, District-
Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer, District- Jaisalmer.
5. Sho, Police Station-Sadar Jaisalmer, District- Jaisalmer.
6. Sho, Police Station-Kotwali Jaisalmer, District- Jaisalmer.
7. Investigation Officer, First Information Report No-
75/2025 Police Station-Sadar Jaisalmer, District-
Jaisalmer.
8. Bagaru Ram Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station-
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (2 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
Sadarjaisalmer, District- Jaisalmer Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajjak Khan
Mr. Sarwar Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. N.S. Chandawat, AGA
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Devkinandan Vyas
Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 05/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 05/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/05/2026
BY THE COURT:-
If all parts of something are replaced over time, is it still the
same thing?1
GRIEVANCE
1. The instant criminal writ petition, instituted under Article 226
of the Constitution of India2, has been preferred by the petitioners
ventilating a grave grievance against the actions of the police
authorities. The petitioners seek issuance of appropriate directions
restraining the respondent authorities from uploading or
1 Ship of Theseus also known as Theseus’s Paradox.
2 To be referred as “COI”.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (3 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
disseminating the photographs of the petitioners/accused persons
on social media platforms, and from subjecting them to a “social
trial” in the public domain.
1.1 It is contended that such acts on the part of the authorities
not only prejudice the fair trial of the petitioners but also amount
to an unwarranted intrusion upon their fundamental rights,
particularly the right to life and personal liberty, the right to
privacy, and the right to a fair and impartial trial, as guaranteed
under the COI
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that an FIR
bearing No. 75/2025 dated 10.07.2025 came to be registered at
the instance of Respondent No. 8 in relation to an incident arising
out of public protest at village Basanpeer Juni, District Jaisalmer,
during proceedings undertaken by the Executive Magistrate. The
petitioners have been arrayed as accused and subjected to
proceedings under Sections 170 and 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20233.
2.1 The gravamen of the grievance of the petitioners is that,
subsequent to their arrest, they were subjected to humiliating and
degrading treatment by the police authorities, including being
made to sit in undignified conditions and being photographed and
videographed. It is further averred that such images and videos
were uploaded and widely circulated on official social media
platforms of the police, thereby exposing the petitioners to an
3 To be referred as “BNSS”.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (4 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
impermissible “social trial”, causing grave prejudice to their
dignity, reputation and right to fair trial. The petitioners assert
that such actions, being devoid of any statutory sanction or
prescribed procedure, are ex facie arbitrary and violative of their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the
COI. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the impugned acts of publicly parading arrested
persons and disseminating their images on official social media
platforms are in direct contravention of Article 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and violate the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the COI. It was
contended that such actions amount to arbitrary, unlawful and
extra-judicial punishment, undermining the presumption of
innocence, dignity and right to a fair trial. The respondents, by
assuming the role of adjudicators, have acted beyond statutory
authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 4 (now
BNSS), thereby eroding the rule of law. It was further submitted
that these practices inflict irreversible stigma and humiliation,
contrary to both constitutional mandates and established human
rights principles.
4 To be referred as CrPC.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (5 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
SUBMISSIONS BY THE AMICUS CURIAE
4. Shri Devkinandan Vyas, Amicus Curiae has also submitted
his preliminary submissions along with the copy of SOP dated
21.01.2026, newspaper reports and statistical reports. He
submitted that the present writ petition raises a serious and
systemic issue concerning violation of the fundamental right to life
with dignity under Article 21 of COI, arising from the recurring
practice of police authorities publicly humiliating arrested persons
by parading them, disrobing them and circulating their
photographs on media platforms. It was contended that such acts
are wholly without statutory sanction, amount to extra-legal
punishment, and violate the principles of presumption of
innocence, privacy, reputation and fair trial, thereby striking at the
core of Articles 14 and 21 of the COI and the rule of law. It was
further submitted that arrest is not punitive in nature and such
practices cause irreversible stigma and trauma, necessitating
judicial intervention and the formulation of enforceable guidelines
to safeguard constitutional rights.
5. Shri Yogendra Singh Charan also submitted a note regarding
the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of COI, as
philosophically grounded in the ideas of Immanuel Kant, is
inherent and inviolable, and stands breached by practices such as
photographing, disrobing and publicly parading arrested persons.
It was contended that such acts constitute institutional humiliation
and psychological violence, violating constitutional morality and
exceeding the limited investigative role of police in an adversarial
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (6 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
system. It was further urged that the creation of lasting digital
records causes irreversible stigma even in cases of acquittal,
necessitating strict judicial scrutiny.
Compliance of Order dated 20.01.2026 passed by this Court
6. This Court, vide order dated 20.01.2026, passed an interim
direction whereby the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer was
directed to file a specific affidavit, duly responding to and
effectively dispelling the allegations and aspersions levelled in the
writ petition. It was further directed that the Commissioner of
Police, Jodhpur shall ensure removal of the impugned photographs
from all portals, including social media platforms, forthwith. A
detailed reply was also sought from the Commissioner of Police,
Jodhpur, affirming that such incidents shall not recur within the
jurisdiction of the Commissionerate, Jodhpur. For the sake of
ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of order dated
20.01.2026 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings, the submissions advanced in the writ petition,
and the annexed material, including photographs depicting
several individuals, inclusive of women, allegedly taken by
the police authorities.
2. The grievance raised before this Court discloses a
deeply disturbing practice which, according to the petitioner,
has now become alarmingly routine. It is alleged that
whenever a person is arrested on accusation of commission
of an offence, the police compel such arrestee(s) to sit at
the entrance or in front of the gate of the police station,
thereafter taking coloured photographs and circulating the
same widely through newspapers and various social media
platforms.
2.2 Even more egregious are the allegations that, in
certain instances, the accused persons are forced to strip
themselves and are made to sit in a humiliating state, clad(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (7 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]only in undergarments, while photographs are taken and
disseminated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention
of this Court to photographs annexed with the writ petition,
wherein several women are seen sitting at the entrance of a
police station. It is contended that among them are
unmarried young girls, whose photographs have been
circulated indiscriminately on social media platforms and in
local newspapers, thereby portraying them as criminals
before the public at large. It is urged that such publication
is carried out solely to malign their reputation, without there
being any adjudication of guilt by a competent court of law.
4. At this stage, it is apposite to reiterate that an
accused is merely an accused and not a convict. The
constitutional presumption of innocence remains intact
unless displaced by a finding of guilt recorded after a fair
trial. Any act which publicly parades an accused as a culprit,
prior to such adjudication, strikes at the very root of
constitutional morality and rule of law.
5. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees not
merely the right to life, but the right to live with dignity,
honour, and self-respect. The right to dignity does not
evaporate upon arrest. Even a person accused of an offence
continues to be clothed with basic human rights. Forcing an
arrestee to sit on the floor, stripping or partially disrobing
such person, photographing him or her in a degrading
condition, and thereafter circulating those images on social
media or in newspapers, amounts to institutional
humiliation and a direct assault on human dignity.
5.1 The damage caused by such acts is neither
speculative nor transient. Once such photographs are
released into the digital and public domain, the stigma
attaches permanently. In the case of unmarried women, the
consequences can be devastating, affecting their prospects
of marriage, social acceptance, and psychological well-
being. Even if the accused is ultimately acquitted, the scar
inflicted upon reputation and social standing is often
irreparable. The Constitution does not countenance such
irreversible injury at the hands of the State. Significantly,
neither the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, nor the Police Act or the Rules
framed thereunder confer any authority upon the police to
indulge in such conduct. The acts complained of are prima
facie arbitrary, illegal, and reflective of unbridled caprice,
wholly unbecoming of a disciplined force entrusted with the
protection of citizen’s rights. This Court may observe that
any infringement of fundamental rights cannot be tolerated
being a sentinel and the guardian of constitutional liberties.
The issue raised in the present petition discloses a serious
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (8 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
and systemic threat to the fundamental right to life with
dignity.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel Mr. Devkinandan
Vyas standing in the Court seeks for permission to appear
as an intervener, submitted that such practices have
become rampant. He draws the attention of this Court to a
news item published in yesterday’s edition of Dainik
Bhaskar, reporting the arrest of a practising advocate by
Udaimandir Police Station, Jodhpur Commissionerate,
wherein the advocate was made to sit in front of the police
station gate and his photograph was made viral. It is urged
that compelling an arrestee to submit to such public
humiliation gravely tarnishes his image in society and
constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental right to live
with dignity.
7. This Court takes judicial notice and cognizance of the
said news report, as it raises serious concerns touching
upon the fundamental rights of citizens. It is further
submitted that within jail premises also, arrestees are
allegedly compelled to strip and remain in undergarments
while confined in cells. Such conduct is plainly inhuman,
degrading, and violative of the bare minimum human rights
guaranteed to every individual, irrespective of the
accusations against him.
7.1 This Court is of the view that the alleged act is not
only inhumane in nature but also strikes at the very root of
basic human rights and amounts to a clear infraction of the
constitutional guarantees enshrined under the law.
8. Accordingly, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.
Deepak Choudhary, is directed to accept notice on behalf of
the respondents and file a response to the writ petition.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, shall file an
affidavit specifically responding to and negating the
aspersions levelled in the writ petition.
10. In the interregnum, the Superintendent of Police,
Jaisalmer, is directed to make all necessary arrangements to
ensure immediate deletion and removal of photographs and
related content of arrested persons from web portals, social
media handles, and other platforms, if uploaded on their
behalf.
11. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, is
directed to immediately remove the photographs of
Advocate Mohan Singh Ratnu from all web portals, social
media platforms, and any other medium where the same
are available. The compliance shall be ensured within 24
hours and shall be reported to this Court on the next date of
hearing. It is further directed that a detailed reply shall be
filed to satisfy this Court that adequate, effective and
institutional safeguards have been put in place so as to
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (9 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
ensure that such incidents, as noticed hereinabove, are not
repeated in future within the jurisdiction of Police
Commissionerate, Jodhpur.
Additional Affidavit filed by the SP, Jaisalmer
7. Complying to this order, the SP, Jaisalmer, Mr. Abhishek
Shivhare has placed on record an additional affidavit in which he
complied with the order dated 20.01.2026 by removing all
photographs and related content of arrested persons from social
media platforms. It is stated that the incident arose on
10.07.2025 during a law-and-order situation at Village Basanpeer
Juni, where an unlawful assembly turned violent, leading to stone-
pelting and injuries to police and officials, necessitating lawful
force and resulting in the arrest of 22 persons. He denies
allegations of humiliation or coercion, stating that photographs
were taken only for official purposes, with all accused treated
respectfully and without any indecent or forceful conduct. It is
further submitted that no act was intended to harm the dignity or
reputation of the accused, and no objectionable content was
shared. Additionally, in compliance with higher authorities and
Court directions, strict instructions and SOPs have been issued to
all officers to ensure dignified treatment of accused persons and to
prohibit uploading such content on social media.
Compliance Report by Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur
8. A compliance report submitted by the Commissioner of
Police, Jodhpur, Mr. Om Prakash, has also been taken on record.
He submits that the present writ petition sought removal of all
photographs, videos, and related material of the petitioners from
social media platforms in connection with FIR No. 075/2025,
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (10 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
pursuant to which this Court directed filing of a compliance
affidavit and immediate deletion of such content. In compliance, it
is respectfully stated that all necessary steps have been taken in
light of Article 21 of the COI, ensuring the dignity, privacy, and
rights of the accused, with strict guidelines issued prohibiting
public humiliation, sharing of photographs or videos, media
exposure in an insulting manner, or any act encouraging media
trial. It is further submitted that due care is to be taken in police
briefings and in handling accused persons, especially vulnerable
categories, ensuring civilized and dignified treatment. Thus, the
order dated 20.01.2026 has been complied with in its true letter
and spirit, and the compliance report is humbly prayed to be taken
on record.
SOP issued by the Additional DGP, Rajasthan
9. It is apposite to reproduce Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) issued by the Office of the Additional Director General of
Police, Crime Branch, Rajasthan directing police officers on how to
treat arrested accused persons, especially regarding their privacy
and dignity.
कार्यालय अति० महानिदे शक पुलिस, अपराध शाखा राज०।
क्रमां क:- 1368
दिनां क:- 21-01-26
पुलिस आयु क्त जयपुर/जोधपुर,
समस्त महानिरीक्षक पुलिस रें ज राज.,
पुलिस उपायुक्त जयपुर/जोधपुर,
समस्त जिला पुलिस अधीक्षक राज.।
विषयः -गिरफ्तारशु दा अभियुक्त की निजता के अधिकार के संबंध में मानक
संचालन प्रक्रिया।
प्रसंगः – माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर द्वारा पारित निर्णय
दिनां क 20.01.2026 की पालना में।
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (11 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 के अंतर्गत प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को गरिमा, सम्मान
एवं निजता के साथ जीवन जीने का अधिकार प्राप्त है। अभियु क्त केवल आरोपित होता
है , दोगी नही ं। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह
स्पष्ट किया गया है कि गिरफ्तारी के पश्चात भी व्यक्ति की मानवीय गरिमा एवं निजता
समाप्त नही ं होती।
• प्रत्येक गिरफ्तारशुदा अभियुक्त के साथ मानवाय, सभ्य एव विधिसम्गत व्यवहार किया
जाएगा।
• गिरफ्तारशु दा अभियु क्त को सार्वजनिक रूप से अपमानित, प्रदर्शित या अपदानी पी तरह
प्रस्तुत नही ं किया जाएगा।
फोटो/वीडियो/सोशल मीडिया से संबंधित निर्देश
• गिरफ्तारी के समय या पश्चात अभियुक्त का फोटो या वीडियो-
X सोशल मीडिया
X पुलिस के आधिकारिक / अनौपचारिक प्लेटफॉर्ग
X मीडिया या प्रेस
पर अपलोड / साझा नही ं किया जाएगा।
From bare perusal of the directive, it is clear that it is rooted
in Article 21 of the COI, which guarantees every individual the
right to live with dignity, respect, and privacy. The document
emphasizes that an accused person is merely alleged to have
committed an offence and is not guilty unless proven so, and
therefore, even after arrest, their fundamental rights, especially
dignity and privacy, remain intact. It directs all police officials to
ensure humane, civil, and lawful treatment of arrested persons
and strictly prohibits any form of public humiliation, display, or
degrading presentation. Importantly, it imposes a clear ban on
capturing or sharing photos or videos of arrested individuals on
social media, police platforms (official or unofficial), or through the
media/press. The circular aims to prevent “social/media trials” and
uphold the constitutional and human rights of accused persons
during and after arrest.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (12 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
Official Circular issued by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur
10. It is deemed necessary to reproduce an official circular
issued by the Police Commissioner Jodhpur dated 22.01.2026.
कार्यालय पुलिस आयुक्त, जोधपु र
कमां क:-व-15()पु.आ. जोध./अपशा/विविध/2026/ 490 दिनां क:-22.01.2026
पुलिस उपायुक्त,
जिला पूर्व पश्चिम,
पुलिस आयु क्तालय, जोधपुर।
विषयः – गिरफ्तारशु दा अभियु क्त की निजता के अधिकार के संबंध में।
प्रसंग:- श्रीमान अतिरिक्त महानिदे शक पुलिस, अपराध शाखा, राजस्थान, जयपुर का
पत्रां क 1368 दिनां क 21.01.2026, 1366 दिनां क 21.01.2026 एवं एस.बी.
किमिनल मिस पिटीशन संख्या 224/2026 इस्लाम खां एवं अन्य बनाम राजस्थान
सरकार में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर की आदे शिका दिनां क
20.01.2026 के सन्दर्भ में।
महोदय,
उपरोक्त विषयान्तर्गत लेख है कि श्रीमान अतिरिक्त महानिदे शक पुलिस, अपराध
शाखा, राजस्थान, जयपुर द्वारा प्राप्त प्रासं गिक पत्रों एवं माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय
जोधपुर की आदे शिका दिनां क 20.01.2026 की प्रतियां संलग्न प्रेषित है । सं विधान के
अनुच्छेद 21 के अन्तर्गत प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को गरीमा, सम्मान एवं निजतः के साथ जीवन
जीने का अधिकार प्राप्त है। अभियुक्त मात्र आरोपित होता है , दोषी नही ं। माननीय सर्वोच्च
न्यायालय एवं राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा स्पष्ट किया गया है कि गिरफ्तारी के पश्चात
भी व्यक्ति की मानवीय गरीमा एवं निजता समाप्त नही ं होती है । इस संबंध में निम्नां कित
दिशा-निर्देशों की कड़ाई से पालना सुनिश्चित कराएं :-
– गिरफ्तारशुदा अभियु क्त के साथ मानवीय, सभ्य एवं विधिसम्मत व्यवहार किया जाए।
गिरफ्तारशुदा अभियु क्त को सार्वजनिक रूप से अपमानित, प्रदर्शित अथवा अपराधी क
तरह प्रस्तुत नही ं किया जाए।
– गिरफ्तारी के समय या पश्चात अभियुक्त का फोटो अथवा वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पुलिस
की अधिकारिक / अनौपचारिक प्लेटफार्म, मीडिया अथवा प्रेस पर अपलोड एवं साझा
नही ं किया जाए।
– किसी भी अभियुक्त को मीडिया के सामने अपमानजनक हालत में प्रस्तुत नही ं किया
जाए।
-पुलिस ब्रिफिंग में गिरफ्तारशुदा अभियुक्त के संबंध में शब्दों का प्रयोग सावधानी 7
पूर्वक एवं गरीमा के साथ किया जाए।
– मीडिया ट्र ायल को प्रोत्साहित करने वाला कोई भी कार्य नही ं किया जाए।
– अभियुक्त को बेठाने, ले जाने या रखने की व्यवस्था सभ्य एवं सुरक्षित रखी जाए।
– महिलाओं, वृद्धों, युवतियों एवं कमजोर वर्गों के साथ विशेष संवेदनशीलता बरती जाए।
संलग्नः उपरोक्तानुसार।
भवदीय,
(ओम प्रकाश)
पुलिस आयु क्त,
जोधपुरThe circular lays down strict instructions for police officers,
arrested individuals must be treated in a humane and lawful
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (13 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]manner; they must not be publicly humiliated or paraded; their
photos or videos must not be shared on social media, police
platforms, or with the press; they should not be presented before
the media in a degrading manner; police briefings must use
careful and dignified language; media trials must not be
encouraged; and proper, safe, and respectful arrangements must
be ensured during custody or movement. It also specifically calls
for heightened sensitivity toward women, elderly persons, and
vulnerable groups.
OBSERVATION
11. I have heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
and the amicus curiae as well as perused the material available on
record.
12. Upon a careful and conscientious perusal of the material
available on record, this Court is constrained to observe that the
conduct of the police officials reflects a palpable overreach of
authority. Such exercise of power, which neither finds sanction
under the COI nor under any statutory enactment in force, cannot
be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law. The
criminal justice framework, as envisaged by the legislature, is
neither silent nor ambiguous, every offence is accompanied by a
prescribed procedure, a defined punishment, and a designated
authority competent to adjudicate and impose such punishment. It
is, therefore, not open to any authority to assume unto itself
powers that have not been conferred by law. When power, not
vested by statute, is nonetheless exercised, and that too in a
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (14 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]manner alien to the procedure established by law, it strikes at the
very foundation of legality and results in a manifest abuse of
authority. Such transgression not only vitiates the process but also
erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.
12.1 At the very threshold, it becomes imperative to advert to the
doctrine of constitutional morality, which forms the bedrock of our
democratic polity. Constitutional morality mandates that every
organ of the State act within the confines of its lawful authority,
with due regard to the rights and dignity of individuals. Any
deviation therefrom has far-reaching consequences, impacting not
only the legal rights of a person but also inflicting deep
psychological, mental, and, in certain cases, even physical trauma.
Constitutional Morality and Limits on State Power
13. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to a situation
where the police, under the guise of transparency or public
accountability, arrogates unto itself the role of judge in the court
of public opinion. The doctrine of constitutional morality, which
permeates the entire constitutional framework, mandates that
every action of the State must conform to the principles of
fairness, reasonableness, and respect for individual dignity. Any
act that falls foul of these principles cannot be justified on grounds
of administrative expediency or public sentiment. The argument
that such disclosures are necessary to maintain public confidence
in the police is fundamentally flawed, for confidence in the justice
system is not built upon spectacle, but upon adherence to due
process and the rule of law. The police, being an instrumentality of
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (15 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
the State, is bound by constitutional discipline and cannot
transgress into domains reserved exclusively for the judiciary.
13.1 In a constitutional democracy, the entire framework of
governance is anchored in the doctrine of separation of powers, a
principle that acts as a safeguard against arbitrariness and
concentration of authority. The three organs of the State, the
Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, are not merely
functional divisions but are constitutionally ordained institutions,
each entrusted with distinct and well-defined roles. The
Legislature, as the representative will of the people, is vested with
the power to enact laws; the Executive is duty-bound to
implement and enforce those laws in their true spirit; and the
Judiciary stands as the final arbiter, interpreting the law and
ensuring that justice is dispensed in accordance with constitutional
mandates. This harmonious distribution of powers is not accidental
but is essential to preserve the rule of law and prevent the rise of
absolutism.
13.2 It is a settled principle that when any organ of the State
ventures beyond its prescribed limits and encroaches upon the
domain of another, such action amounts to an excess of power
and is liable to be curtailed. The COI does not permit overlap in a
manner that disturbs this institutional equilibrium. Rather, it
envisions a system of checks and balances where each organ
functions independently, yet remains accountable within its
sphere. Within this framework, the police, as an essential limb of
the Executive, occupy a position of immense responsibility. Their
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (16 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
primary duty is to enforce the law, maintain public order, and
ensure the safety and security of citizens. However, this authority,
significant as it is, remains circumscribed by legal boundaries. The
function of determining guilt, adjudicating disputes, or
pronouncing upon the rights and liabilities of individuals is the
exclusive domain of the Judiciary. The police cannot, under the
guise of investigation or enforcement, assume the role of a judge
or engage in acts that resemble judicial determination. Any
transgression by the police into the judicial sphere, whether by
declaring an accused guilty in the public domain, conducting
actions that prejudice a fair trial, or exercising powers not
sanctioned by law, would not only be without jurisdiction but
would also strike at the very heart of due process. Such conduct
undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system and
dilutes the constitutional promise of fairness and impartiality.
Therefore, it is imperative that each organ of the State remains
confined within its constitutional limits. The strength of a
democracy lies not in the dominance of one organ over another,
but in their balanced coexistence. The police must discharge their
duties with diligence and integrity, but always within the contours
of law, refraining from encroaching upon the sacrosanct domain of
the Judiciary, for it is only through such disciplined adherence to
constitutional principles that the rule of law can truly prevail.
13.3 It is deeply disquieting to note a growing tendency wherein
the police, in ostensible exercise of their investigative powers,
indulge in practices such as publicizing photographs of accused
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (17 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
persons on social media, subjecting them to so-called “perp
walks”, and exhibiting them in a manner calculated to invite public
gaze and opprobrium. Instances where individuals are made to sit
in humiliating conditions and their images are widely circulated,
including those of women, are particularly alarming, as such acts
carry far-reaching consequences upon their dignity, reputation,
and future prospects. At a stage where the individual is merely an
accused and the presumption of innocence remains intact, such
conduct of the police assumes the character of a punitive
measure, operating outside the authority of law. The power to
punish is neither incidental to investigation nor vested in the
Executive; it lies exclusively within the province of the Judiciary
upon a finding of guilt established through due process. Any
attempt by the police to subject an accused to public humiliation
or social condemnation, prior to adjudication, amounts to an
unwarranted usurpation of judicial function and is in the teeth of
constitutional guarantees of fairness, dignity, and due process.
Such actions not only prejudice the right to a fair trial but also
erode the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, where
punishment must follow conviction, and not precede it.
Nature of Police-Driven Media Trial
14. The phenomenon colloquially described as a “media trial by
police”. Such a practice is not a mere by-product of independent
journalistic enthusiasm, but rather a State-engineered narrative,
wherein the police machinery, through press conferences,
orchestrated disclosures, circulation of photographs, and at times
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (18 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
even staged representations of arrest, seeks to project an accused
person as culpable even before the due process of law has had an
opportunity to unfold. Such conduct, in the view of this Court,
amounts to a direct transgression of the foundational principles of
criminal jurisprudence, particularly the presumption of innocence,
which stands as a bulwark against arbitrary State action. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K.
Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT and Ors. 5, has
unequivocally deprecated this growing tendency amongst
investigating officers to prematurely inform the media of alleged
breakthroughs, observing that such crude attempts to claim
investigational credit not only jeopardise the integrity of the
investigation but may, in certain cases, facilitate the escape of the
actual offender.
Psychological and Mental Impact: Institutional Humiliation
15. What further aggravates the situation is the manner in which
such media trials are operationalised through practices that can
only be described as institutional humiliation, wholly inconsistent
with the constitutional promise of dignity. The act of parading an
accused before the media, the capturing and dissemination of
photographs or videos within the confines of a police station, and
the convening of press briefings wherein guilt is insinuated or
declared, together constitute a systematic erosion of the
individual’s dignity and reputation. In the digital age, the
consequences of such actions are neither fleeting nor reversible;
5[Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009] decided on 24.11.2009.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (19 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
rather, they assume a permanent character, leaving indelible scars
upon the psyche and social standing of the individual, even in
cases where eventual acquittal is secured. The right to life under
Article 21 of the COI is not to be understood in a narrow or
pedantic sense, but as encompassing the right to live with dignity,
free from humiliation, stigma, and unwarranted public exposure.
15.1 Coming to the Greek concept of Ship of Theseus, from which
we commenced this discussion, the enduring inquiry, whether a
thing remains the same after all its parts have been replaced,
aptly illuminates the condition of an individual subjected to
institutional humiliation. The answer, in the present context, is
neither abstract nor philosophical alone, but profoundly human, a
person, once exposed to such degradation, does not remain the
same thereafter.
The creation and circulation of lasting digital records, be it through
photographs taken within the confines of a police station, or the
indignity of images captured during custodial stripping in locker
rooms, inflict a deep and irreparable psychological scar. Such acts
transcend the immediate moment of indignity and acquire a
permanence in the digital sphere, thereby perpetuating stigma
and social condemnation. This injury does not stand effaced even
where the individual is subsequently exonerated of all allegations.
The damage, once done, embeds itself into the psyche, impeding
the natural course of cognitive and emotional evolution of the
individual.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (20 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
15.2 Human civilization, as it progresses, is premised upon the
evolution of its institutions alongside its people. In a constitutional
democracy governed by the principle of constitutional supremacy,
the State and its instrumentalities are not relics of the past but
are expected to embody the transformative ideals of the COI. The
role of the police, therefore, cannot remain static or rooted in
archaic practices that reflect a colonial consciousness of control
and subjugation. It is of particular significance that the Indian
Parliament has, in recent times, undertaken the exercise of
shedding colonial vestiges by replacing antiquated penal laws. In
parity of reasoning, it becomes imperative that the police
machinery, too, undergoes a corresponding transformation in its
functioning and approach. Practices that undermine dignity, violate
privacy, or subject individuals to premature public condemnation
are wholly incompatible with the tenets of constitutional morality
and democratic values. The police, as guardians of law and order,
must remain ever cognizant that their authority is circumscribed
by the COI, and that the legitimacy of their actions flows not
merely from statutory power but from adherence to the principles
of fairness, dignity, and justice. Any deviation therefrom not only
erodes public trust but also inflicts a lasting injury upon the very
individuals whom the justice system is duty-bound to protect.
What the Constitution Mandates?
16. Equally, the interplay between Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
COI assumes critical significance in this context. While the
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of COI,
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (21 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
including that of the press, remains a cherished right in a
democratic polity, it is not unbridled, and must yield where its
exercise results in interference with the administration of justice
or the denial of a fair trial, as contemplated under Article 19(2) of
COI. Article 20(3) of COI, which protects an accused against self-
incrimination, is rendered illusory when investigative agencies
publicly attribute confessions or involvement to an accused person
prior to trial. Most importantly, Article 21 of COI guarantees not
merely life, but a life with dignity, fairness, and due process, all of
which stand compromised when an individual is subjected to
public condemnation without adjudication.
16.1 The Law Commission of India, in its 200th Report on “Trial by
Media” has meticulously documented the pernicious effects of
prejudicial publicity, including distortion of bail proceedings,
contamination of witness testimony, and the irreversible tarnishing
of reputation through publication of alleged confessions. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra
Jawanmal Gandhi6 has categorically held that trial by media is
antithetical to the rule of law and capable of resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
Interplay between Reputation and Human Dignity in Law
(i) In the case of Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 7,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that the right to reputation is
an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 of the COI. The
6(1997) 8 SCC 386.
7(2013) 10 SCC 591.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (22 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
Court further observed that reputation constitutes a valuable facet
of personal security and any injury thereto amounts to a personal
wrong. It was further held that the right to freedom of expression
under Article 19 of the COI is not absolute and must be balanced
against the right to reputation of others. The Court also took note
of the recognition of such rights under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. For the ease of reference, the
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein
below:-
11. Allegations against any person if found to be false or
made forging some one else signature may affect his
reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good
opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to
reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and
defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been
defined in dictionary as “to have a good name; the credit,
honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public
opinion or esteem and character by report”. Personal rights
of a human being include the right of reputation. A good
reputation is an element of personal security and is
protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the
enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has
been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to
life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
recognises the right to have opinions and the right of
freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the
right of reputation of others. Reputation is “not only a salt
of life but the purest treasure and the most precious
perfume of life.” (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh v.
The Committee of Inquiry and Anr. AIR 1989 SC 714; Board
of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 109;
Nilgiris Bar Association v. T.K. Mahalingam and Anr. AIR
1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of
Chattisgarh and Ors. AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath
Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal AIR 2012
SC 586; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Ors.
(2013) 2 SCC 398).
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (23 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
(ii) In the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors.8, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that any
act of humiliation, mental torture, or degrading treatment inflicted
upon an accused in custody is a direct infringement of the right to
life with dignity under Article 21 of COI. The Court specifically
condemned the act of forcing an accused to pose with self-
incriminating placards and circulating such images, holding it to be
inhuman and violative of dignity. It was further held that
constitutional courts are empowered to grant compensation for
such violations under Articles 32 and 226 of the COI.
(iii) In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal 9, Hon’ble
the Supreme Court held that an arrested person does not forfeit
their fundamental rights, including the right to life and dignity. The
Court laid down detailed and mandatory guidelines to be followed
during arrest and detention to prevent custodial abuse, ensure
transparency, and uphold accountability of law enforcement
agencies.
(iv) In the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration &
Ors.10, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that even prisoners are
entitled to the protection of fundamental rights, and any form of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is impermissible under
Article 21 of the COI. The Court emphasized that a prisoner can
never be stripped of the constitutional protections when he is
imprisoned for any crime.
8(2012) 8 SCC 1.
9(1997) 1 SCC 416.
10(1980) 3 SCC 488.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (24 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
OPINION
17. Ultimately, this Court reiterates that the power to investigate
does not encompass the power to declare guilt. The criminal
justice system, grounded in the presumption of innocence and the
guarantee of a fair trial, cannot be permitted to be subverted by
parallel narratives constructed outside the courtroom. In a society
governed by the rule of law, justice cannot be overshadowed by
publicity, nor can dignity be sacrificed at the altar of
sensationalism. The COI demands that every individual,
irrespective of the allegations levelled against them, be treated as
innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, and be
protected against any form of State action that undermines that
fundamental guarantee.
17.1 What is being inflicted in such situations is, in substance, a
form of punishment that carries with it a lifelong stigma. The law,
however, is clear and unambiguous: punishments are only those
which are prescribed within the statutory framework, and no court
in India is empowered to travel beyond those limits. The police, it
must be emphasised, are not vested with any authority to punish;
their role is confined to investigation and maintenance of law and
order. Even in the gravest of offences, such as murder, the
consequences that follow must be in strict adherence to the
procedure established by law and the punishments recognised
therein. The practice of subjecting an accused to public
condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs, or
other such acts amounts to an extra-legal penalty. It is neither
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (25 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
contemplated nor recognised by law. Section 53 of Indian Penal
Code11 (corresponding to Section 4 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita12)
delineates the contours of lawful custody, and the broader
statutory scheme exhaustively prescribes the nature and extent of
punishments that may be imposed including, death; imprisonment
for life, that is to say, imprisonment for remainder of a person’s
natural life; Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely-
Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; Simple; Forfeiture of property;
Fine and Community Service.
17.2 The courts, while awarding punishment, are guided by
explicit statutory provisions; they cannot innovate or endorse
penalties that find no mention in law. Consequently, any attempt
by an investigating agency to impose or facilitate a form of
“punishment” not recognised by statute, or even by the Apex
court, must be viewed with serious constitutional concern. Such
conduct not only transgresses the limits of lawful authority but
also undermines the foundational principles of fairness, dignity,
and the rule of law.
17.3 It must be ensured, with a heightened sense of
responsibility, that individuals who bear no adverse antecedents,
no blemished character, and no prior criminal history are not
subjected to public parading or the dissemination of their
photographs. Such acts, when undertaken prematurely, inflict
unwarranted stigma and amount to a form of extrajudicial
censure, wholly inconsistent with the presumption of innocence
11 To be referred as “IPC“.
12 To be referred as “BNS”.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (26 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
that lies at the heart of criminal jurisprudence. Equally, the
mandate to uphold human dignity does not rest solely within the
confines of Fundamental Rights under the COI, but extends to the
broader canvas of human rights jurisprudence, to which India
stands committed as a signatory to various international
conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These
obligations are not ornamental in nature; they cast a binding duty
upon the State and its instrumentalities to ensure that the dignity
of every individual is preserved, irrespective of the nature of the
allegations against them. Even in cases involving heinous
offences, or where the accused is alleged to be a habitual offender
or history-sheeter, the guarantee of basic human rights does not
stand eclipsed. The measure of a constitutional democracy is
tested not in its treatment of the virtuous, but in its conduct
towards those accused of the gravest transgressions. To disregard
their basic human rights would be to erode the very foundation of
the rule of law, replacing it with arbitrariness and excess. Thus, it
is incumbent upon the law enforcement machinery to act with
restraint, sensitivity, and an unwavering commitment to
constitutional morality, ensuring that the process of investigation
does not itself become a source of injustice.
DIRECTIONS
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that immediate and stringent corrective
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (27 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
measures are imperative. It is deemed appropriate to pass the
following directions: –
(i) It is hereby directed that strict adherence shall be
maintained to all prescribed Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs). Any deviation or breach thereof shall invite appropriate
and proportionate action against the erring police officials, in
accordance with law.
(ii) It is further directed that no individual possessing an
unblemished record and lacking serious criminal antecedents shall
be subjected to public parading, disrobing, or any form of
degrading treatment.
(iii) This Court unequivocally declares that any act of social
media condemnation orchestrated or facilitated by police
authorities, which results in public humiliation of an individual,
shall be construed as a form of punishment. Such a mode of
punishment finds no sanction in law. Police officials are, therefore,
expressly prohibited from engaging in or abetting such practices,
as they are not vested with the authority to impose punishment in
any manner whatsoever.
(iv) The aforesaid guidelines shall be prominently displayed at all
police stations, as well as on the official web portals of the Police
Department, including the websites of the Director General of
Police and the Home Department. The same shall be presented in
the form of clear “Do’s and Don’ts,” along with reference to the
present order, so as to ensure public awareness of rights and to
secure institutional accountability.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17927] (28 of 28) [CRLW-224/2026]
(v) Lastly, it is directed that the basic human rights of every
arrestee, as well as of any individual entering a police station with
a grievance, shall be scrupulously respected. No person shall be
subjected to misbehavior, mishandling, manhandling, harassment,
or any form of coercion under any circumstances.
19. Accordingly, in view of the above directions, the instant
petition is disposed of.
20. Stay petition and all pending applications also stands
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
36-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 11:53:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:29:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
