8 May 2026 Legal Updates

Police Cannot Publicly Humiliate Arrested Persons By Posting Their Photos On Social Media: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court held that police-led “media trials” and circulation of accused persons’ photos amount to unconstitutional “extra-legal punishment” violating dignity and presumption of innocence.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

(b) Court:

• Rajasthan High Court

(c) Bench:

• Justice Farjand Ali

Facts of the Case

• The petitioners, who were accused in a criminal case, approached the Rajasthan High Court alleging that after their arrest, they were subjected to humiliating treatment by the police. According to them, the police forced them to sit in degrading positions, photographed and videographed them, and later circulated these images on official social media platforms.
• The petitioners argued that this public exposure effectively portrayed them as criminals even before trial and caused severe reputational and psychological harm. They claimed that the actions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
• The amici curiae assisting the Court submitted that such conduct by police officials amounted to institutional humiliation and “media trial by police,” which violates the principle of presumption of innocence and exceeds the lawful powers of investigation.
• The State, however, argued that the photographs were taken only for official purposes and denied allegations of humiliation. It also informed the Court that SOPs and circulars had been issued directing police officers not to circulate photographs or videos of arrestees.

Issues Raised

• Whether police authorities can circulate photographs and videos of arrested persons on social media?
• Whether public parading and humiliation of accused persons violate Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution?
• Whether police-led “media trials” violate the principle of presumption of innocence?
• Whether circulation of arrestee photographs amounts to an extra-legal punishment not sanctioned by law?

Contentions of the Petitioners

1. Police publicly humiliated the petitioners after arrest by photographing and videographing them in degrading conditions.

2. Circulation of these images on social media violated:

• Right to dignity
• Right to reputation
• Right to fair trial

3. Such actions amounted to institutional humiliation and psychological violence.

4. Police cannot act like judges by portraying accused persons as guilty before trial.

5. Permanent digital circulation of such content causes irreversible stigma even if the accused is later acquitted.

6. Such conduct violates:

• Article 14 (Equality)
• Article 21 (Life & Personal Liberty)
• Article 22 (Protection against arbitrary arrest)

Contentions of the Respondents (State/Police)

• The photographs were allegedly taken only for official purposes.
• There was no intention to humiliate the accused persons.
• SOPs and departmental circulars had already been issued prohibiting circulation of photographs/videos of arrestees.
• Compliance reports were filed showing that authorities had removed such content from portals and instructed officers to maintain dignity of arrested persons.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Police Cannot Conduct “Media Trial”

The Court strongly criticised the growing phenomenon of: “Media Trial by Police”

The Court observed that police authorities:

• Conduct press conferences
• Circulate photos/videos
• Publicly portray accused persons as criminals even before trial begins.

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

Thus: Investigation is permissible, Public condemnation is not.

2. Presumption Of Innocence Is A Foundational Principle

The Court reiterated that: Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Public circulation of photographs:

• Creates public prejudice
• Damages fair trial rights
• Treats accused as already convicted

The Court said such conduct directly violates criminal jurisprudence principles.

3. Social Media Humiliation Is “Extra-Legal Punishment”

One of the most important observations of the judgment was:

Public humiliation through police-sponsored media exposure amounts to punishment not recognised by law.

The Court clarified: Only courts can impose punishment.

Police cannot punish through:

• Social media exposure
• Public parading
• Disrobing
• Humiliation

The Court termed this: “Extra-legal punishment.”

4. Violation Of Article 21 – Right To Dignity

The Court emphasized that: Human dignity is part of Article 21.

Even an arrested person retains:

• Right to dignity
• Right to privacy
• Right against degrading treatment

The Court noted that: Arrest does not strip a person of constitutional protections.

5. Permanent Digital Harm

The Court gave special importance to the long-term impact of digital circulation.

It observed:

• Once photographs/videos are uploaded online,
• The stigma becomes permanent,
• Even acquittal cannot fully repair the reputational damage.

The Court described such harm as: Psychological violence, Irreversible mental injury

6. Police Cannot Enter Judicial Domain

The Court held: Police are investigators, not adjudicators.

The police cannot:

• Pronounce guilt publicly
• Conduct social trials
• Prejudice judicial proceedings

Doing so violates: Separation of powers, Due process, Rule of law

7. SOPs & Institutional Accountability

The Court examined the SOPs and circulars issued by police authorities.

These SOPs already prohibited:

• Circulation of photos/videos
• Social media humiliation
• Public display of arrestees

The Court directed strict enforcement of these SOPs.

Constitutional Provisions Discussed

1. Article 21 – Right to Life & Personal Liberty

Includes:

• Right to dignity
• Right to reputation
• Right to fair procedure
• Right against degrading treatment

2. Article 14 – Equality Before Law

• State action must: Be fair, Non-arbitrary, Reasonable
• Public humiliation violates fairness principles.

3. Article 22 – Rights of Arrested Persons

Protects:

• Procedural safeguards during arrest
• Protection against arbitrary police action

Final Verdict

The High Court disposed of the petition after issuing important directions.

The Court directed:

1. Strict adherence to all SOPs

Any violation by police officials would invite action.

2. No Public Parading

Persons without criminal antecedents cannot be:

• Publicly paraded
• Disrobed
• Humiliated

3. Ban On Social Media Condemnation

Police officials were expressly prohibited from:

• Uploading photographs/videos
• Publicly humiliating accused persons
• The Court declared such conduct: Illegal punishment without authority of law.

4. Public Awareness

The Court directed:

• Display of “Do’s and Don’ts” in police stations
• Publication on official police portals

5. Respect For Human Rights

Police must ensure:

• Humane treatment
• No coercion
• No harassment
• No mishandling of arrestees