Rajasthan High Court Bars Police From 'Humiliating' Arrested Persons By Posting Their Photos On Social Media, Calls It 'Extra-Legal Punishment'

Justice Farjand Ali observed that such conduct by the police amounts to imposing a punishment that is not statutorily prescribed and violates the principle of presumption of innocence.

“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 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 power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt…The practice of subjecting an accused to public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs, or other such acts amounts to an extra-legal penalty.”

The Court was considering a writ petition seeking directions to the police authorities from uploading and disseminating photographs of accused persons on social media platform, subject them to social trial.

The petitioners, the accused in a criminal case, claimed that they were subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment subsequent to their arrest by being made to sit in undignified conditions, photographed and videographed. They further contended that these images and videos were circulated on the official social media platforms of the police. They said that such conduct violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and prejudiced their rights to dignity, reputation and fair trial.

The amici curiae submitted that such public parading of the arrestee, their disrobing and circulation of such photographs violate the principles of presumption of innocence as well violating the Constitution and the rule of law.

It was further said that the practice constitutes institutional humiliation and psychological violence, violates constitutional morality and exceeds the limited investigative role of the police. Moreover, creation of lasting digital records causes irreversible stigma even where the accused eventually gets acquitted.

The Court had earlier passed an interim order directing the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer to file an affidavit responding to the averments in the plea. It had further directed the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur to ensure that all such photographs are removed from all portals and to file a statement affirming that such incidents are not repeated.

Accordingly, an affidavit recording compliance with the interim order was filed. The SP denied allegations of humiliation and stated that the photographs were taken only for official purposes. It was further stated that strict instructions and SOPs have been issued to all officers for ensuring dignified treatment of arrestees and prohibiting circulation of photos. The Commissioner also filed a compliance report.

Looking at the SOP and the Commissioner's Circular, the Court remarked that the same envisages prevention of social/media trials and also bans taking and circulation of photos/videos of arrestees. Moreover, it directs all police officials to ensure humane, civil, and lawful treatment of arrested persons by strictly prohibiting any form of public humiliation, display, or degrading presentation.

Thereafter, the Court went on to observe that such action by the police can erode public confidence and violates constitutional morality:

“The police, being an instrumentality of the State, is bound by constitutional discipline and cannot transgress into domains reserved exclusively for 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… 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.”

The Court also observed that such institutional humiliation can cause irreversible psychological and mental impact on the persons as well:

“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.”

Directions

Finding a need for immediate and strict corrective measures, the Court went to issue the certain directions, including strict adherence to the SOP, ban on public parading, prohibition of social media condemnation, etc.

“(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.

(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.”

Thus, it disposed of the plea.

Case No: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026

Case Title: Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Counsel for the petitioners: Rajjak Khan, Sarwar Khan

Counsel for the respondents: Deepak Chaudhary, AAG assisted by N.S. Chandawat, AGA

Amicus Curiae: Devkinandan Vyas, Yogendra Singh Charan

Click to Read/Download Order