Parading Accused in Public: The Rajasthan High Court’s Ruling on Presumption of Innocence and Police Power

Introduction

The practice of parading accused persons before the media and public has emerged as a deeply troubling phenomenon within India’s criminal justice system. This practice represents a stark departure from constitutional principles and established jurisprudence that safeguard the dignity and presumption of innocence of every individual. The recent ruling by the Rajasthan High Court in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1], decided on January 20, 2026, has brought renewed attention to this issue. The court’s order addresses the systematic violation of fundamental rights through the public exhibition of accused persons, often before any determination of guilt by a competent court.

This practice manifests in various forms across Indian states, particularly in Rajasthan, where accused individuals are frequently made to sit on police station floors during press briefings, paraded through public streets, subjected to public humiliation including being garlanded with shoes, having their heads forcibly shaved, or being compelled to wear women’s clothing as a form of gendered degradation. These acts occur while the legal presumption of innocence remains intact, transforming arrest itself into a form of punishment that operates entirely outside the framework of law.

The Constitutional Framework: Presumption of Innocence and Dignity

The Indian Constitution provides robust protections for personal liberty and human dignity through multiple provisions. Article 21 of the Constitution stands as the cornerstone of these protections, stating clearly that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” [2] This fundamental right has been interpreted expansively by Indian courts to encompass not merely physical existence but the right to live with human dignity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that dignity forms an essential and inseparable component of the right to life, and any state action that degrades or humiliates an individual violates this constitutional guarantee.

The distinction between an accused person and a convicted person represents a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence. An accused remains legally innocent until proven guilty through due process before a competent court. This presumption of innocence operates as a shield against premature condemnation and ensures that the burden of proving guilt rests entirely upon the prosecution. The practice of parading accused persons fundamentally undermines this principle by treating individuals as if their guilt has already been established, thereby usurping the judicial function and converting police custody into a theater of public condemnation.

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws, providing that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” [3] When police authorities subject accused persons to degrading treatment through public exhibition, they act arbitrarily and without legal sanction, violating the principle of equality. Such arbitrary exercise of power directly contravenes Article 14, which prohibits the state from acting in a capricious or unreasonable manner toward any individual, regardless of whether they stand accused of an offense.

Furthermore, Article 20(2) of the Constitution embodies the principle against double jeopardy, stating that “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” [4] While this provision traditionally addresses formal legal proceedings, the public humiliation inflicted upon accused persons by police constitutes an extra-legal punishment. When an individual is later convicted by a court and sentenced, they have effectively been punished twice – first through the irreversible public shaming orchestrated by police, and second through the judicial sentence.

The Landmark Judgment: Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration

The foundational case addressing the treatment of accused persons and the limits of police power remains Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration [5], decided by the Supreme Court on April 29, 1980. In this landmark judgment, the Court addressed the practice of handcuffing undertrial prisoners during their transit between jail and court. The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner at Tihar Jail, challenged the routine practice of being transported in handcuffs, arguing that such treatment violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for the Court, delivered a judgment that has profoundly shaped the law on prisoners’ rights and the treatment of accused persons. The Court held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, declaring it over-harsh and arbitrary unless justified by clear and compelling circumstances. The judgment emphasized that “to manacle a man is more than to mortify him; it is to dehumanize him and therefore to violate his very personhood.”

The Court established that the only circumstance validating the use of restraints is when there exists no other reasonable way of preventing escape in the given circumstances. Routine handcuffing, based merely on administrative convenience or the seriousness of the charges, was declared unconstitutional. The judgment further condemned the classification of prisoners into “better class” and “ordinary” categories for purposes of determining whether to apply handcuffs, declaring such classification arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 14. The principles laid down in Prem Shankar Shukla apply with equal force to the practice of parading accused persons before the public and media.

Judicial Protection of Prisoners’ Rights: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

The Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the dignity of persons in custody received further elaboration in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [6], decided on December 20, 1979. This case arose from a letter written by a prisoner to a Supreme Court judge, alleging that prison authorities had tortured another inmate by inserting a rod into his anus to extort money. The Supreme Court treated this letter as a writ petition and initiated proceedings to investigate the allegations.

The judgment categorically rejected the “hands-off” doctrine that had previously insulated prison administration from judicial scrutiny. Justice Krishna Iyer, again writing for the Court, held that fundamental rights do not abandon a person at the prison gates. While these rights may undergo reasonable restrictions necessitated by incarceration, they do not disappear entirely. The Court emphasized that persons in custody remain persons under the Constitution, entitled to the protection of fundamental rights including the right to dignity under Article 21.

The Sunil Batra judgment established detailed guidelines for prison administration, emphasizing that prisoners must be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. The Court drew upon international instruments including Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” These principles extend beyond the walls of prisons to encompass all persons in police custody.

The Rajasthan High Court’s Intervention in Islam Khan

The recent order of the Rajasthan High Court in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. represents a crucial judicial intervention against the practice of public exhibition of accused persons. The case came before the Court in the context of disturbing reports and instances where accused persons were compelled to sit on police station floors during press briefings, sometimes in partially disrobed conditions, with their photographs and videos widely circulated across social media and news platforms.

The Court characterized this practice as “institutional humiliation” and held that it strikes at the very root of constitutional morality and the rule of law. The judgment emphasized that an accused person is not a convict, and that constitutional protections do not evaporate upon arrest. Public exhibition prior to adjudication, the Court observed, undermines the presumption of innocence that forms the bedrock of criminal justice. The Court reminded law enforcement authorities that their investigative powers do not extend to public exhibition and humiliation of accused persons.

The Systemic Nature of the Problem in Rajasthan

Documentation by civil society organizations reveals that the practice of parading accused persons in public has become systematic and normalized in Rajasthan over the past years [7]. This is not the sporadic misconduct of individual officers but rather a defiant, organized practice that continues despite clear legal prohibitions. The evidence compiled shows accused persons being marched through streets with visible injuries, forced to apologize on camera, made to crawl on roads, and subjected to various forms of gendered and caste-based humiliation.

This practice persists in open defiance of advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs and circulars issued by the Rajasthan Director General of Police forbidding these very acts [9]. The performative nature of these public exhibitions reveals their true purpose. They are not investigative techniques but rather spectacles designed to inflict humiliation, satisfy public anger, and enact summary punishment without trial.

Legal Violations and International Standards

The practice of parading accused persons in public violates multiple layers of legal protection. Beyond constitutional provisions, it contravenes principles established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the conduct of criminal investigations and trials. India is also bound by international human rights standards to which it is a signatory. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Impact on the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence operates as more than a courtroom technicality; it represents a foundational principle of criminal justice that protects individuals from the awesome power of the state. When police parade accused persons before media and public, they effectively declare these individuals guilty without trial. The visual images of accused persons in custody create a powerful impression of culpability in the public mind that no subsequent acquittal can fully erase.

Conclusion

The practice of parading accused persons before the public and media represents a fundamental betrayal of constitutional values and the rule of law. The Rajasthan High Court’s order in Islam Khan serves as a timely reminder that constitutional discipline must guide executive action. A society committed to the rule of law must ensure that criminal justice administration remains a function of adjudication conducted in courtrooms according to established procedures, not a spectacle performed for public consumption.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2026, January 23). Public Exhibition Of Accused And Presumption Of Innocence. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/accused-public-exhibition-innocence-presumption-523133

[2] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 21 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/

[3] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 14 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/

[4] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 20 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/

[5] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853252/

[6] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1979. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778810/

[7] CJP. (2026, January). Rajasthan’s Public Shaming: Police humiliation practices defy law and human dignity. https://cjp.org.in/rajasthans-public-shaming-police-humiliation-practices-defy-law-and-human-dignity

[8] The Constitution of India. (n.d.). Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-21-protection-of-life-and-personal-liberty/

[9] Sabrang India. (2026, January). Parade of Public Shaming: How Rajasthan police’s illegal “arrest rituals” replace due process with public defilement. https://sabrangindia.in/parade-of-public-shaming-how-rajasthan-polices-illegal-arrest-rituals-replace-due-process-with-public-defilement/