Circulation Of arrestees’ photos on social media by police is extra-legal punishment without sanction in law: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the practice of police authorities uploading or circulating photographs of arrested persons on social media platforms amounts to an extra-legal penalty unrecognised by law and falls foul of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

A single bench of Justice Farjand Ali, sitting at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 filed by ten residents of village Basanpeer Juni, District Jaisalmer, who were arrested on 10 July 2025 in connection with an FIR lodged at Police Station Sadar Jaisalmer and proceeded against under Sections 170 and 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It was alleged that subsequent to arrest, the petitioners — including women and a 71-year-old man — were made to sit in undignified conditions outside the police station and that their photographs and videos were circulated on official police social media handles, thereby exposing them to a “social trial.” By an interim order dated 20.01.2026, the Court had directed removal of the impugned content and called for compliance affidavits from the SP, Jaisalmer and the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur. The Additional Director General of Police (Crime Branch), Rajasthan thereafter issued an SOP dated 21.01.2026, followed by a circular dated 22.01.2026 by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, prohibiting upload or sharing of photos or videos of arrestees on social media or in the press.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajjak Khan and Mr. Sarwar Khan, contended that publicly parading arrested persons and disseminating their images contravened Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and amounted to arbitrary, unlawful and extra-judicial punishment, undermining the presumption of innocence. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Devkinandan Vyas and Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan, urged that the practice violated the right to live with dignity under Article 21 and necessitated enforceable guidelines. The State, represented by AAG Mr. Deepak Chaudhary assisted by AGA Mr. N.S. Chandawat, did not contest the principle and placed on record the affidavit of the SP, Jaisalmer confirming compliance.

Framing the issue with the philosophical question — “If all parts of something are replaced over time, is it still the same thing?” — the Court invoked the Ship of Theseus paradox to illuminate the lasting damage caused by institutional humiliation. On the question of police overreach, the Bench observed:

“Upon a careful and conscientious perusal of the material available on record, this Court is constrained to observe that the conduct of the police officials reflects a palpable overreach of authority. Such exercise of power, which neither finds sanction under the COI nor under any statutory enactment in force, cannot be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law… When power, not vested by statute, is nonetheless exercised, and that too in a manner alien to the procedure established by law, it strikes at the very foundation of legality and results in a manifest abuse of authority.”

Invoking the doctrine of constitutional morality and the principle of separation of powers, the Court held that the function of determining guilt is the exclusive domain of the judiciary and that the police, as a limb of the executive, cannot transgress into that sphere. It was held:

“Any transgression by the police into the judicial sphere, whether by declaring an accused guilty in the public domain, conducting actions that prejudice a fair trial, or exercising powers not sanctioned by law, would not only be without jurisdiction but would also strike at the very heart of due process.”

Characterising the phenomenon as a “media trial by police,” the Bench held that it was not a by-product of independent journalism but a “State-engineered narrative,” projecting the accused as culpable before due process unfolds. Reliance was placed on Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009, decided on 24.11.2009), where the Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of investigating officers to prematurely inform the media of alleged breakthroughs.

On the irreversible psychological impact of such conduct, the Court observed:

“The answer, in the present context, is neither abstract nor philosophical alone, but profoundly human — a person, once exposed to such degradation, does not remain the same thereafter. The creation and circulation of lasting digital records, be it through photographs taken within the confines of a police station, or the indignity of images captured during custodial stripping in locker rooms, inflict a deep and irreparable psychological scar… This injury does not stand effaced even where the individual is subsequently exonerated of all allegations.”

Anchoring the right to reputation in Article 21, the Bench placed reliance on Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 591, Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488. The Court also adverted to the Law Commission of India’s 200th Report on “Trial by Media” and to State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386, which held trial by media to be antithetical to the rule of law.

On the catalogue of permissible punishments, the Court held that the punishments under Section 53 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 4 of the BNS, are exhaustive and that no extra-statutory penalty can be inflicted. The Bench held:

“What is being inflicted in such situations is, in substance, a form of punishment that carries with it a lifelong stigma. The law, however, is clear and unambiguous: punishments are only those which are prescribed within the statutory framework, and no court in India is empowered to travel beyond those limits. The police, it must be emphasised, are not vested with any authority to punish; their role is confined to investigation and maintenance of law and order… The practice of subjecting an accused to public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs, or other such acts amounts to an extra-legal penalty. It is neither contemplated nor recognised by law.”

The Bench further held that the obligation to uphold human dignity is not confined to Part III of the Constitution but extends to the broader canvas of human rights jurisprudence under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, observing that even in cases involving habitual offenders or history-sheeters, the guarantee of basic human rights does not stand eclipsed.

Accordingly, disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed (i) strict adherence to the prescribed SOPs, with proportionate action against erring officials for any breach; (ii) that no individual with an unblemished record and no serious antecedents shall be subjected to public parading, disrobing or degrading treatment; (iii) that any act of social-media condemnation orchestrated or facilitated by police authorities resulting in public humiliation shall be construed as a form of punishment without sanction in law, and police officials are expressly prohibited from such practices; (iv) that the guidelines shall be prominently displayed at all police stations and on the official web portals of the Police Department, the Director General of Police and the Home Department in the form of clear “Do’s and Don’ts” with reference to the present order; and (v) that the basic human rights of every arrestee, and of every individual entering a police station with a grievance, shall be scrupulously respected with no person being subjected to misbehaviour, mishandling, manhandling, harassment or any form of coercion.

Case Title: Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026
Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:17927]
Date of Pronouncement: 5 May 2026
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Rajjak Khan, Mr. Sarwar Khan
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, AAG, assisted by Mr. N.S. Chandawat, AGA
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Devkinandan Vyas, Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan