Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Himanshu Joshi, J
Sangram Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 29793 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Shikha Paliwal
For the Respondents: Shri Deepak Sahu, Shri Anmol Rawat
The right to dignity under Article 21 prohibits public shaming of an accused; however, transporting an accused on foot to court due to lack of vehicle is not per se a violation unless a deliberate and malicious intent to humiliate is established.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to Dignity - Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to live with human dignity; any state action resulting in humiliation, degradation, or public shaming of an individual without authority of law is unconstitutional. (Para 7)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of Innocence - An accused person cannot be subjected to any form of punishment or public humiliation prior to conviction, as such conduct treats the accused as a convict without due process of law. (Para 8)
(C) Police Procedure - Transportation of Accused - The act of transporting an accused from a police station to court on foot due to unavoidable circumstances (e.g., non-availability of vehicle) does not ipso facto constitute a violation of fundamental rights unless done with mala fide intention to humiliate. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the act of police personnel in parading the petitioner on foot to the court violated the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to initiate action against the concerned police officials for allegedly subjecting the petitioner and other co-accused persons to an illegal, arbitrary and humiliating public parade, thereby infringing their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has not challenged any specific judicial or administrative order, but has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the ground of violation of his right to life and dignity and inaction on the part of the authorities despite representations.
The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, is that he is an agriculturist aged about 35 years and resident of Nahar Colony, Bareli, District Raisen. On 14.11.2018, the Bolero vehicle owned by the petitioner accidentally hit the railing of Rajshree Hotel, which incident, according to the petitioner, was purely inadvertent. However, the owner of the said hotel lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.528/2018 at Police Station Bareli, District Raisen, alleging offences under Sections 294, 323, 452, 427 and 506-B of IPC. The copy of the said FIR has been brought on record as Annexure A/1. It is the contention of the petitioner that the allegations made in the FIR are exaggerated and frivolous in nature.
It is further pleaded that subsequent to registration of the FIR, the petitioner and other co-accused persons voluntarily presented themselves before the police authorities through their family members. However, certain police officials allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- and threatened that in case the amount was not paid, the entire family would be falsely implicated in serious criminal cases. Though this allegation is serious in nature, the same is asserted to demonstrate the mala fide conduct of the concerned officials.
The gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner is that on 17.11.2018, respondent Nos.3 to 8, who are police personnel posted at Police Station Bareli, forcibly took the petitioner and other co-accused persons out of the police station and paraded them on foot from the police station to the Court at Bareli, covering a distance of approximately 2.5 kilometers along a public road/national highway, in full public view and allegedly in the presence of media persons. It is contended that the said act was done without any legal necessity or justification and was intended to humiliate and degrade the petitioner. Photographs depicting the said incident have been filed as Annexure A/2, which prima facie indicate that the petitioner was exposed to public gaze during the said procession. It is further contended by the counsel that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and was merely an accused in the aforesaid case, and therefore, such treatment was wholly unwarranted and violative of his fundamental rights. The petitioner submits that his brother submitted representations before the competent authorities seeking action against the erring police personnel. Copies of the said representations have been filed as Annexure A/3. However, despite submission of such representations, no action has been taken till date, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the act of parading an accused person in public amounts to a gross violation of the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity. It is submitted that such acts amount to pre-trial punishment and are contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence. It is further argued that the conduct of the police officials is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional safeguards.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Stat
