Rajasthan High Court Draws the Line: No More 'Social Trials' for Arrestees

In a scathing rebuke to overzealous policing, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has ruled that posting photos of arrested individuals on social media amounts to extra-legal punishment , violating their right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Farjand Ali, in a 28-page order dated May 5, 2026, issued binding guidelines to prevent such practices, emphasizing that "an accused is merely an accused and not a convict." The case arose from a village protest in Jaisalmer, where 10 petitioners—mostly locals including women—were paraded and photographed after their arrest.

From Stone-Pelting Chaos to Digital Shame

The trouble began on July 10, 2025, during a public protest at Basanpeer Juni village in Jaisalmer. An Executive Magistrate's proceedings turned violent with stone-pelting, injuring police and officials. FIR No. 75/2025 was registered under Sections 170 and 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against 22 people, including petitioners like Islam Khan, Bay Khan, and women such as Hasiyat and Tija. Post-arrest, police allegedly forced them to sit undignified outside the station, snapped photos, and blasted them across official social media—triggering this Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026 under Article 226 .

Petitioners argued this "social trial" smeared their reputation, breached privacy, and prejudiced fair trials, invoking Articles 14, 21, and 22 . News reports, including those from Dainik Bhaskar , echoed similar incidents, like an advocate paraded in Jodhpur, amplifying the systemic rot.

Petitioners' Plea: 'We're Innocent Until Proven Guilty'

Counsel Rajjak Khan and Sarwar Khan hammered home that parading arrestees—especially women and first-timers—inflicts irreversible stigma . They cited Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Supreme Court precedents like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which mandates dignity even in custody. Amicus curiae Devkinandan Vyas and Yogendra Singh Charan submitted SOPs, stats, and philosophical notes (drawing from Kant and the Ship of Theseus paradox), labeling it institutional humiliation and psychological violence .

Police affidavits from SP Jaisalmer Abhishek Shivhare and Commissioner Jodhpur Om Prakash denied coercion, claiming photos were for "official purposes" during a law-and-order crisis. They affirmed compliance with interim orders (January 20, 2026), removing content and issuing SOPs banning such shares. Yet, the court saw through this, noting no statutory backing in CrPC/BNSS or Police Act .

Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Dignity Doesn't Vanish at Arrest

Justice Ali invoked constitutional morality and separation of powers , slamming police for usurping judicial roles via "police-driven media trials." He dissected precedents:

  • Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra (2009): Pre-trial media leaks jeopardize probes.
  • Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013): Reputation is part of Article 21 ; free speech yields to it.
  • Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012): Placard-posing is inhuman.
  • D.K. Basu and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980): Arrestees retain rights; no degrading treatment.

The judgment philosophized via the Ship of Theseus : digital scars persist post-acquittal, altering one's essence forever. Even for serious crimes, police can't punish—only courts can, per IPC Section 53 / BNS Section 4 .

Media reports post-judgment hailed it as a bar on "humiliating" arrestees, aligning with the court's view that such acts mock presumption of innocence .

Key Observations

"Forcing an arrestee to sit on the floor, stripping or partially disrobing such person, photographing him or her in a degrading condition, and thereafter circulating those images on social media or in newspapers, amounts to institutional humiliation and a direct assault on human dignity."

"The police cannot, under the guise of investigation or enforcement, assume the role of a judge or engage in acts that resemble judicial determination."

"Any act of social media condemnation orchestrated or facilitated by police authorities, which results in public humiliation of an individual, shall be construed as a form of punishment. Such a mode of punishment finds no sanction in law."

A New Dawn for Arrestees: Five Ironclad Directives

The petition was disposed with these statewide mandates: 1. Strict SOP adherence; breaches invite action. 2. No parading/disrobing for those without serious antecedents. 3. Social media shaming banned as unsanctioned punishment. 4. Guidelines displayed at stations and police websites as "Do’s and Don’ts." 5. Human rights upheld—no harassment, especially for vulnerable groups.

This ruling fortifies safeguards against custodial indignities, potentially curbing "perp walks" nationwide. It signals police must evolve beyond colonial tactics, especially post-new laws like BNSS/BNS , ensuring justice isn't sensationalized online.