Public Shaming Of Accused Violates Article 21: MP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Alleged 'Deliberate And Malicious' Parading By Cops

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Raisen's Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations that police personnel 'deliberately and maliciously' subjected the petitioner and other co-accused persons to a public parade.The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that to establish a violation under Article 21, the petitioner ought to have proved that the actions of the police officers were 'deliberate and malicious and intended to humiliate or degrade' the petitioner. However, the bench also noted that the settled position is that "mere transportation of the accused from the police station" to the court for production before the magistrate, even if done on foot under unavoidable circumstances, would not by itself violate Article 21, unless such an act was done "deliberately to humiliate with malafide intention"."The concept of presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, and an accused person cannot be subjected to any form of punishment or public humiliation prior to conviction. The alleged act of parading the petitioner in public, if established, would amount to treating the accused as a convict without due process of law. Such conduct has been consistently deprecated by constitutional courts as being violative of human rights and constitutional guarantees," the court said.It further noted that the explanation of the State was that "due to non-availability of official vehicle" the accused persons were taken on foot to the Court, and observed that the same "cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when production before the Court within stipulated time is a statutory requirement".The court observed that while petitioner had made representations which did indicate that a grievance was raised before the authorities, however but "mere non action" on such representations would not automatically warrant issuance of mandamus for initiating disciplinary proceedings "unless a prima facie case of misconduct is established"In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to establish, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the act of the police personnel amounted to a deliberate and malicious public parade so as to infringe his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the nature of allegations made and in order to ensure fairness, it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Raisen, to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner by conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations, if not already conducted," the court directed. The petition was filed seeking issuance of directions commanding the State to initiate action against concerned police officials for allegedly subjecting the petitioner and other co-accused to an illegal, arbitrary and humiliating public parade. The case arose from an accident that occured on November 14, 2018, wherein the petitioner's Bolero vehicle allegedly accidentally hit the railing of Rajshree Hotel. The owner of the hotel filed a complaint leading to registration of an FIR alleging obscenity (Section 294), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323), mischief causing damage (Section 427), house trespassing (Section 452) and criminal intimidation (Section 506B) of IPC. The counsel for the petitioner argued that he, along with other co-accused, voluntarily presented themselves before the police officials, who allegedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹2 lakh. The police officials further threatened the accused men, claiming that they would falsely implicate the entire family if gratification was not paid. The counsel for the petitioner further emphasised the incident of November 17, 2018, wherein police officers, respondents 3 to 8, who were posted at Bareli Police Station, forced the accused men to parade on foot from the police station to the court, covering a distance of 2.5 kms along public road and national highway, allegedly in the presence of media persons. The counsel for the petitioner argued that he had submitted a presentation before the competent authority seeking action against the erring police officer, but no action was taken. The counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was arrested on November 16 and produced before the magistrate on November 17. However, due to the non-availability of a vehicle, the police personnel had no option but to take the accused persons on foot. The court noted that the case pertains to Article 21, which provides for the fundamental right to live with dignity. The court reiterated that Article 21 not only protects life and personal liberty but also encompasses the right to live with...

Public Shaming Of Accused Violates Article 21: MP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Alleged 'Deliberate And Malicious' Parading By Cops

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Public Shaming Of Accused Violates Article 21: MP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Alleged 'Deliberate And Malicious' Parading By Cops

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers