Police Authorities Cannot Publicly Disseminate Accused Photographs or Conduct Media Trials Violating Constitutional Right to Dignity

The petitioners, including several women, were arrayed as accused following a public protest in village Basanpeer Juni, Jaisalmer, and booked under Sections 170 and 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioners alleged that subsequent to their arrest, they were subjected to humiliating treatment, including being forced to sit in undignified conditions, being photographed/videographed, and having these images circulated by the police on social media platforms.

This resulted in an "extra-judicial social trial" prior to any adjudication of guilt.

During the proceedings, the Court took judicial notice of similar incidents involving the public humiliation of an advocate in Jodhpur.

In response to interim orders, the Rajasthan Police issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 21.01.2026 and a circular on 22.01.2026 prohibiting such practices.

1. Whether the police practice of parading arrested persons and disseminating their photographs on social media violates the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether such actions by law enforcement agencies constitute a "media trial" and an unauthorized usurpation of judicial power.

3. Whether the police possess any statutory authority to impose social stigma or public humiliation as a form of "punishment."

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to live with human dignity and privacy.

The principle of "presumption of innocence".

The doctrine of separation of powers, emphasizing that the penal power is reserved exclusively for the Judiciary under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS.

Section 53 of the IPC (now Section 4 of the BNS) to define the exhaustive list of lawful punishments, noting that "social humiliation" is not among them.

Precedent: Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh regarding the right to reputation.

Precedent: Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding custodial humiliation.

Precedent: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal concerning custodial rights.

The Court reasoned that an accused remains an accused until convicted, and the right to dignity does not evaporate upon arrest.

By parading arrestees and circulating "mugshots" on social media, the police engage in "institutional humiliation" which causes irreversible digital stigma, akin to the "Ship of Theseus" paradox where the individual's psyche is fundamentally altered by the trauma.

The Court found that such acts are devoid of statutory sanction and constitute "extra-legal penalties" that violate the rule of law and constitutional morality.

It further observed that "media trials" orchestrated by the Executive interfere with the administration of justice and violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution by effectively declaring guilt before a trial.

The Court noted that even habitual offenders retain basic human rights that the State cannot truncate through arbitrary spectacle.

The Court disposed of the petition with directions including mandatory adherence to the SOP dated 21.01.2026, explicit prohibition of parading or disrobing individuals, declaration of police-led social media condemnation as an illegal punishment, mandatory display of "Do’s and Don’ts" describing rights at police stations, and a general mandate to protect the human rights and dignity of every person.