Introduction:

In a landmark judgment reaffirming the constitutional protections available to arrested individuals, the Rajasthan High Court has strongly condemned the growing practice of “media trial by police” and held that public humiliation of arrestees through photographs, videos, and social media dissemination amounts to an extra-legal form of punishment that has no sanction in law. The Court emphasized that the police, while empowered to investigate offences, possess no authority to publicly declare guilt or subject accused persons to social condemnation before trial.

The decision was delivered by Justice Farjand Ali in Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026. The writ petition was filed by certain accused persons who alleged that after their arrest they were subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment by police officials. According to the petitioners, they were made to sit in undignified conditions, photographed and videographed, and the images were subsequently circulated on official social media platforms maintained by the police authorities.

The petitioners argued that such conduct violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. They contended that public circulation of their photographs and videos effectively portrayed them as guilty even before commencement of trial, thereby causing irreversible damage to their dignity, reputation, and right to a fair trial.

The case emerged against the backdrop of a broader and increasingly concerning trend in criminal investigations where police agencies frequently publish photographs and videos of accused persons on social media platforms, hold press conferences narrating prosecution theories, and at times orchestrate visual presentations that create an impression of guilt in the public mind. This phenomenon, often described as “media trial by police,” has raised serious constitutional concerns regarding the presumption of innocence and misuse of State power.

During the proceedings, amici curiae appointed by the Court highlighted the severe implications of such practices. They argued that public parading, disrobing, and circulation of photographs of accused persons amount to institutional humiliation and psychological violence, entirely inconsistent with constitutional morality and the rule of law. It was also argued that digital circulation of such material creates a permanent social stigma that continues to affect individuals even if they are ultimately acquitted by courts.

The Court had earlier passed an interim order directing the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, to file an affidavit responding to the allegations raised in the petition. Simultaneously, the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, was directed to ensure removal of all such photographs from online platforms and submit a compliance report affirming that similar incidents would not recur.

In response, the police authorities denied allegations of humiliation and stated that the photographs had been taken solely for official purposes. The authorities also informed the Court that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and departmental circulars had already been issued directing police officials to ensure dignified treatment of arrestees and prohibiting circulation of photographs and videos.

However, while examining the issue, the High Court undertook a broader constitutional analysis of police conduct, media exposure of accused persons, and the limits of investigative powers. The judgment ultimately evolved into an important pronouncement on dignity, due process, and constitutional discipline governing police functioning in India.

The Court’s observations are particularly significant because they recognize that public humiliation orchestrated by law enforcement agencies can itself become a form of punishment imposed outside the framework of law. By holding that such conduct violates the presumption of innocence and encroaches upon the judicial domain, the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the foundational principle that guilt can only be determined by a competent court after a fair trial.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners contended that following their arrest in connection with a criminal case, they were deliberately subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment by police authorities. According to them, they were made to sit in undignified postures, photographed and videographed while in custody, and the resulting images and videos were circulated through official social media platforms operated by the police department.

The petitioners argued that such actions were not merely procedural irregularities but amounted to direct violations of their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. They asserted that every accused person is entitled to dignity, fair treatment, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty through due process of law.

It was contended that by publicly circulating their images and videos, the police authorities effectively branded them as criminals before any judicial determination of guilt. This, according to the petitioners, irreparably prejudiced their right to a fair trial and subjected them to social condemnation without legal authority.

The petitioners further argued that the actions of the police amounted to institutional humiliation and abuse of State power. Public dissemination of arrest-related photographs and videos exposed them to ridicule, reputational harm, and lasting social stigma extending far beyond the criminal proceedings themselves.

The amici curiae appearing before the Court strongly supported the petitioners’ submissions and highlighted the broader constitutional implications of such police practices. They argued that public parading of accused persons, disrobing, forced posing for photographs, and circulation of such material are fundamentally inconsistent with constitutional morality and the rule of law.

The amici further submitted that the police are constitutionally entrusted only with investigative powers and not with authority to impose punishment or socially condemn accused persons. By engaging in media exposure and public humiliation, police authorities effectively assume a quasi-judicial role reserved exclusively for courts of law.

Another important submission advanced by the amici concerned the psychological consequences of digital humiliation. It was argued that photographs and videos circulated through social media platforms create permanent digital records that continue to haunt individuals even after acquittal. Such irreversible stigma damages personal dignity, mental health, social standing, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The amici emphasized that presumption of innocence forms a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary State action. Police practices that publicly portray accused persons as guilty undermine this principle and distort public perception even before trial commences.

The petitioners and amici also stressed that constitutional protections available to arrested persons are not contingent upon innocence or guilt. Human dignity survives arrest and detention, and the State remains under a continuing constitutional obligation to ensure humane treatment of every individual in custody.

On the other hand, the State and police authorities denied allegations of deliberate humiliation. The Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, filed an affidavit asserting that photographs had been taken only for official purposes connected with investigation and record maintenance.

The police authorities further informed the Court that instructions and Standard Operating Procedures had already been circulated directing all officers to ensure dignified treatment of arrested persons and prohibiting unnecessary circulation of photographs and videos.

The Commissioner of Police also submitted a compliance report indicating that steps had been taken to remove photographs from online platforms and prevent recurrence of similar incidents in future.

The State argued that the police department was conscious of constitutional obligations and had already issued circulars emphasizing humane treatment of accused persons. According to the respondents, adequate safeguards had been put in place to regulate police conduct during arrests and investigations.

However, despite these submissions, the Court considered it necessary to examine the broader constitutional dimensions of the issue and determine whether such practices were legally permissible within the framework of criminal justice administration.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Farjand Ali delivered a strongly worded judgment condemning the practice of public humiliation of accused persons by police authorities. The Court held that circulation of photographs, staged media exposure, and social media condemnation of arrestees constitute extra-legal punishment lacking any statutory sanction.

At the outset, the Court expressed serious concern regarding the increasing phenomenon of what it described as “media trial by police.” The Court observed that such practices are often not spontaneous acts of journalism but rather “State-engineered narratives” in which police authorities themselves facilitate public portrayal of accused persons as guilty before judicial adjudication.

The Court observed:

“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 judgment emphasized that the presumption of innocence is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive constitutional safeguard deeply embedded within the criminal justice system. Every accused person remains legally innocent until guilt is established through due process before a competent court.

Justice Ali categorically held that police powers of investigation do not include authority to publicly declare guilt or subject accused persons to humiliation. The Court observed that the police cannot assume the role of judges or engage in conduct that prejudices fair trial rights.

Importantly, the Court declared:

“The power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt.”

The Bench held that public condemnation through photographs, videos, press conferences, and social media circulation amounts to imposition of punishment outside the framework of law. Such punishment, according to the Court, has no statutory basis and therefore violates constitutional guarantees.

The Court also emphasized that police authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are bound by constitutional discipline. Investigative powers must operate strictly within legal boundaries and cannot extend into domains constitutionally reserved for the judiciary.

Justice Ali observed that when police authorities publicly portray accused persons as criminals before trial, they effectively interfere with judicial processes and undermine fairness of criminal adjudication. Such conduct erodes public confidence in rule of law and weakens institutional legitimacy of the justice system.

The judgment also extensively addressed the psychological and social consequences of public humiliation. The Court acknowledged that circulation of digital images and videos causes deep and often irreversible mental trauma. Even subsequent acquittal cannot fully erase the social stigma created through widespread online dissemination.

In a particularly significant observation, the Court remarked:

“The creation and circulation of lasting digital records…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.”

The Court recognized that dignity forms an integral component of Article 21 of the Constitution and survives arrest or detention. No individual can be deprived of basic human dignity merely because criminal allegations have been made against them.

While examining the SOPs and departmental circulars placed on record, the Court noted with approval that the police department had already recognized the necessity of preventing media trials and prohibiting circulation of photographs and videos of arrestees.

However, considering the seriousness of the issue, the Court found it necessary to issue comprehensive directions to ensure strict compliance and institutional accountability.

The Court directed strict adherence to all prescribed SOPs and warned that any deviation would invite appropriate legal action against erring police officials. It specifically prohibited public parading, disrobing, or degrading treatment of individuals without serious criminal antecedents.

Most importantly, the Court unequivocally declared that any social media condemnation orchestrated or facilitated by police authorities shall be treated as a form of punishment without sanction of law. Police officials were expressly restrained from engaging in or encouraging such practices.

The Court further directed that the guidelines and SOPs be prominently displayed at all police stations and official police websites in the form of “Do’s and Don’ts” to promote public awareness and institutional accountability.

Additionally, the Court directed that the human rights of every arrestee and every individual visiting police stations must be scrupulously respected. It prohibited misbehavior, harassment, mishandling, coercion, or degrading conduct under any circumstances.

The judgment ultimately disposed of the writ petition while converting the case into an important constitutional precedent governing treatment of arrested persons.

The ruling is highly significant because it reinforces the principle that criminal justice cannot be administered through public spectacle or social media narratives. It affirms that constitutional protections do not disappear upon arrest and that police authorities remain accountable to principles of dignity, fairness, and due process.

By recognizing social media humiliation as an impermissible form of punishment, the Rajasthan High Court has drawn an important constitutional boundary between legitimate investigation and unlawful public condemnation. The judgment thus stands as a powerful reaffirmation of the rule of law, presumption of innocence, and the enduring constitutional commitment to human dignity.