Context: A vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court sharply criticized the West Bengal state police for publicly parading accused individuals with ropes tied around their waists and circulating the videos on social media.
About State Power vs Human Dignity: The Debate Over Public Shaming of Accused
What is the conflict?
- The public shaming of accused individuals exposes a deep tension in public administration between retributive state power and constitutional morality. From an administrative standpoint, police forces often claim that public parades act as a visual deterrent to crime and maintain public order.
- However, from an ethical standpoint, an individual’s fundamental right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty are non-negotiable requirements of justice. Public shaming replaces the rule of law with informal, state-sponsored public humiliation.
Legal and Statutory Framework Governing Restraints:
- No Legal Sanction for Public Shaming: Indian criminal law does not authorize police to publicly parade, humiliate, or display accused persons. Any such act lacks statutory backing and violates the principle of dignity guaranteed under the Constitution.
- Section 43(3) of the BNSS: The BNSS permits handcuffing only in exceptional cases involving serious crimes such as terrorism, organized crime, rape, acid attacks, human trafficking, or habitual offenders with escape risks.
- Principle of Cautionary Interpretation: The law uses the term “may” instead of “shall”, meaning handcuffs are discretionary rather than mandatory. Police must assess the necessity of restraints based on the specific facts of each case.
- Prisoners Act Framework: Section 9(2)(e) empowers states to frame rules for the safe escort of prisoners during transit. However, this authority is limited to security purposes and does not justify public humiliation or degradation.
Key Judicial Precedents and Constitutional Principles:
- Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980): The Supreme Court held that routine handcuffing is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Restraints can be used only when authorities record specific reasons demonstrating a genuine risk of escape or violence.
- Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995): The Court prohibited indiscriminate handcuffing and chaining of prisoners during custody or transit. It emphasized that such practices offend human dignity and may invite contempt proceedings.
- Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2026): The Rajasthan High Court condemned the practice of publicly displaying detainees for photographs and social media circulation. It ruled that such actions violate the right to life with dignity under Article 21.
- Sangram Singh Rajoot v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026): The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that publicly marching an accused without legal justification amounts to unconstitutional humiliation.
Ethical Theories Associated with Penal Administration
- Deontological Ethics (Kant): Kantian ethics holds that every individual possesses inherent dignity and must never be treated merely as a means. Public parading reduces a person to a tool for demonstrating state authority.
- Ethic of Care: This framework stresses the state’s duty to protect vulnerable individuals under its custody. Since detainees depend entirely on the police, authorities must safeguard them from humiliation and abuse.
- Rawlsian Justice: Rawls argues that a just society protects equal basic liberties for all citizens. Publicly degrading an under-trial undermines fairness by imposing social punishment before legal guilt is established.
Challenges to Preserving Institutional Integrity:
- Persistence of “Inspector Raj” Practices: Despite judicial directives, some police units continue using public intimidation tactics rooted in colonial policing traditions. Such practices prioritize fear and spectacle over constitutional values.
- Amplification Through Social Media: Arrest videos and images can spread instantly online, causing irreversible reputational damage. Even if acquitted later, individuals often continue to suffer social stigma and prejudice.
- Weak Accountability Mechanisms: Violations of arrest and restraint guidelines rarely result in prompt disciplinary action. The absence of strong deterrents encourages the continuation of unconstitutional practices.
- Inadequate Transport Infrastructure: Many police stations lack secure escort vehicles, especially in rural areas. As a result, detainees are often transported publicly, increasing the risk of humiliation and rights violations.
Way Forward:
- Mandatory Written Justification for Restraints: Police officers should be required to record detailed reasons whenever restraints are used. Judicial scrutiny of these records would ensure accountability and prevent arbitrary decisions.
- Immediate Contempt Action for Public Shaming: Officers involved in parading suspects or circulating arrest videos should face swift disciplinary and contempt proceedings. Strong penalties would reinforce respect for constitutional protections.
- Deployment of Enclosed Escort Vehicles: Governments should provide secure transport vans to all police units for moving detainees. This would eliminate unnecessary public exposure and protect the dignity of accused persons.
- Constitutional Morality in Police Training: Police academies should integrate human rights, ethics, and constitutional morality into regular training. Such reforms can promote a culture of procedural fairness and dignity.
- Digital Redaction of Under-Trial Identities: Police departments should be prohibited from publishing unblurred images or videos of under-trials. Digital safeguards can prevent premature social punishment and protect privacy rights.
Conclusion:
The public parading of accused individuals reveals a troubling gap between state power and the constitutional promise of human dignity. As the Calcutta High Court observed, the authority to arrest does not grant a license to publicly defame or humiliate a citizen before they have faced a fair trial.
Secure answer writing practice question
