Recently, the Calcutta High Court strongly criticized the state police for parading arrested suspects in public with ropes tied around them.
- The Court ruled that while the police have the legal power to arrest a person, they have absolutely no right to subject them to public display or state-sponsored defamation.
UPSC Online Courses
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- Rebuke of Public Shaming: The Court explicitly stated that the police have the authority to execute an arrest to investigate a crime, but they possess zero authority to publicly defame or humiliate an accused person.
- Condemnation of Video Circulation: The Court took strict note of social media videos showing suspects being marched down public streets with ropes wrapped around their waists, calling out the visual degradation of citizens.
- Demanded Accountability: A vacation bench ordered the state police to submit a formal report within three weeks, forcing law enforcement to explain and justify their actions under the law.
Vacation Bench
- Definition: A Vacation Bench is a special court bench that functions during the vacation period of courts to hear urgent matters.
- Constitution of the Bench: It is constituted by the Chief Justice and usually consists of a limited number of judges from the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts of India.
- Nature of Cases Heard: Vacation Benches mainly deal with emergency cases such as bail applications, stay orders, habeas corpus petitions, and matters involving fundamental rights.
- Restriction on Routine Matters: Ordinary or non-urgent cases are generally not heard unless delay may cause irreparable harm or serious injustice.
- Significance: These benches ensure continuity of the judicial system and uphold the principle of timely access to justice even during court holidays.
|
Key Constitutional and Legal Rules
- No Written Law for Public Parading: There is no codified law in India that allows the police to parade suspects in public or show them off to the media.
- The Restraint Rule: Section 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) sets down the rules for using handcuffs. It states that an officer “may” use handcuffs based on how serious the crime is, but limits this to specific dangerous offenses like terrorism, murder, rape, or repeat offenses.
- A Choice, Not a Routine: Because the law uses the word “may” and not “shall,” routine handcuffing is illegal. Police officers must write down the exact reasons why they believe a suspect might run away or become violent.
- Police Manuals Are Only Guidelines: Laws like the Prisoners (Attendance in Court) Act, 1955 and local Police Codes give rules for guarding prisoners. However, these are just internal administrative guidelines. They do not give the police absolute power to ignore fundamental rights.
| Timeline of Past Court Decisions: |
| Year |
Court Case |
What the Court Decided |
| 1980 |
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration |
Freedom is the Rule: The Supreme Court said routine handcuffing is cruel and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21. Restraints must be a last resort, and the reasons must be written down for a judge to see. |
| 1995 |
Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam |
Total Blanket Ban: The Supreme Court banned forcing handcuffs or chains on any prisoner during transit or inside a jail anywhere in India. Officers who break this rule face contempt of court charges. |
| 2026 |
Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (January) |
No Social Media Shaming: Prohibited the police from forcing suspects to sit outside police stations to take and share humiliating photos. The court called this digital public shaming illegal under Article 21. |
| 2026 |
Sangram Singh Rajoot v. State of Madhya Pradesh (April) |
The Intent Test: Looked into a case where a suspect was forced to walk on foot to court. The court said walking is not a violation by itself, but it becomes illegal under Article 21 if the police did it deliberately to shame the person. |
| 2026 |
Present Case (Calcutta HC Order) (June) |
Arrest vs. Humiliation: Reaffirmed that the power to investigate does not give the police the right to humiliate people. The court demanded a formal report explaining why ropes were used. |
Crucial Dimensions and Analytical Insights
- Presumption of Innocence and Article 14: Under Articles 14 and 21, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- This rule applies to police behavior before a trial just as much as it applies to the courtroom. When the police parade a suspect in public, they are treating the person as guilty and punishing them before a judge has even heard the case.
- Right to Privacy and Protection Against Defamation: Publicly displaying a suspect or leaking their photos violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 (established by the Puttaswamy judgment in 2017).
- It also goes against the protections we have against defamation under Article 19.
- Staging arrest photos causes permanent damage to a person’s reputation that can never be fixed, even if the court later finds them completely innocent.
- The Permanent Mark of Digital Stigma: In the past, public shaming was a temporary event seen only by people on the street. Today, pictures and videos shared on social media create a permanent online record.
- This digital stigma stays on the internet forever, causing social isolation and emotional harm long after the legal case is over.
International & Global Frameworks
- UN Nelson Mandela Rules: Rule 47 explicitly bans using chains, irons, or any humiliating restraints on prisoners. Any necessary restraints must be taken off when the prisoner appears before a judicial body.
- European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): The ECHR routinely rules that showing suspects to the public or media in iron cages or heavy chains violates the ban on degrading treatment (Article 3), as it ruins their dignity and biases the public against them.
- US and UK Standards: In the United States and the United Kingdom, suspects are moved in closed vehicles away from public view. Handcuffs are usually removed inside the courtroom so the jury does not become prejudiced against the accused, and the media is tightly restricted from taking staged arrest photos.
Way Forward
- Amending the BNSS: Parliament should add a clear, direct ban against public parading and unauthorized photography of suspects inside the text of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to stop any confusion.
- Internal Discipline: State governments need to update local Police Manuals to treat unauthorized media leaks and public parading as serious misconduct, making supervising officers directly responsible.
- Magistrate Oversight: Lower court judges must check how a suspect was treated during transit. If the police used unauthorized restraints or paraded the suspect, the judge should immediately start contempt of court proceedings against the officers.
Click to Know UPSC Coaching Centres in India
Conclusion
This issue highlights the delicate balance between the state’s policing powers to maintain public order and an individual’s right to life with dignity under Article 21. The courts have made it clear that while the police have the power to restrict a suspect’s physical freedom during an investigation, they have absolutely no authority to strip away their human dignity.
15 Jun 2026
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
