The Rajasthan High Court has come down sharply on police practices that, it said, turn arrest into public spectacle and humiliation. Acting on complaints from residents of Jaisalmer, the Court ordered the immediate removal of photographs of arrested individuals that were circulated on social media and published in newspapers.
The Bench made it clear that custody does not cancel citizenship. An arrest, the Court said, does not strip a person of the Constitution’s protection—especially the right to dignity.
In strong language, the Court condemned allegations that arrestees were made to sit at the gates of police stations, photographed in degrading conditions, and, in some cases, forced to remain partially clothed while images were taken and shared publicly. Such actions, the Court observed, amount to institutional humiliation rather than lawful policing.
The order underscored that parading arrested individuals, photographing them in vulnerable states, and broadcasting those images to the public is not only degrading but fundamentally unlawful. The presumption of innocence, the Court noted, is not a technicality—it is the bedrock of criminal justice. Publicly branding someone as a criminal before trial corrodes that principle.
The judges also highlighted the lasting damage caused by digital circulation. Once images are released online, they can remain searchable indefinitely, leaving scars on reputation and social standing that an acquittal may never fully heal.
Finding no legal provision that authorises such conduct, the Court described the alleged actions as unfair, unjustified, and beyond the scope of police powers. It directed that any photographs of arrested persons made public must be taken down within 24 hours and called for accountability from senior police officials on safeguards to prevent a repeat.
The case was prompted by claims that these practices were not isolated, extending to women as well, including young and unmarried individuals, whose images were allegedly shared without any finding of guilt. Photographic material placed before the Court showed women seated at police station entrances, with images later circulating online and in print—creating a narrative of guilt by exposure.
Taking note of similar reports from other districts, the Court treated the issue as one with wider constitutional implications. Authorities have been asked to submit sworn responses addressing the allegations and detailing measures to ensure respect for fundamental rights during arrests.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing later this month. Until then, the Court’s message is unmistakable: policing cannot be performed at the cost of human dignity, and shame is not a lawful tool of enforcement.
