Human Dignity and Police Accountability
Context
A vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court strongly rebuked the West Bengal Police for parading accused persons with ropes tied around their waists and sharing such visuals on social media, observing that law enforcement cannot undermine constitutional protections in the name of policing.
Custodial Dignity and the Limits of State Authority
What is the Core Issue?
The controversy highlights the clash between coercive policing practices and the constitutional commitment to individual dignity. While law enforcement agencies may justify public displays of accused persons as a deterrent against crime, such actions risk violating the principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Public humiliation effectively imposes a social penalty before judicial determination of guilt, weakening faith in the rule of law and constitutional governance.
Legal Provisions Governing the Use of Restraints
Absence of Statutory Authority for Public Display:
Neither criminal procedure laws nor policing regulations permit the public exhibition, humiliation, or media circulation of accused persons. Such conduct lacks legal foundation and infringes upon constitutional safeguards.
Section 43(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS):
The provision allows handcuffing only in specified serious offences such as terrorism, organized crime, rape, acid attacks, trafficking, and cases involving habitual offenders or escape risks.
Discretionary Nature of Restraints:
The use of restraints is not automatic. Authorities must evaluate necessity on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that restrictions are proportionate and justified.
Prisoners Act Provisions:
State governments may frame rules regarding prisoner escort and security during transit. However, such powers are confined to safety considerations and cannot be extended to public degradation.
Judicial Pronouncements Protecting Human Dignity
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980):
The Supreme Court ruled that routine handcuffing violates constitutional guarantees and can be employed only when supported by specific reasons indicating risks of violence or escape.
Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995):
The Court prohibited indiscriminate handcuffing and chaining, emphasizing that custodial practices must respect the inherent dignity of individuals.
Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2026):
The Rajasthan High Court criticized the practice of photographing and publicly displaying detainees, holding it inconsistent with the dignity component of Article 21.
Sangram Singh Rajoot v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026):
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that publicly marching accused persons without compelling legal justification amounts to unconstitutional humiliation.
Ethical Perspectives on Criminal Justice Administration
Kantian Duty Ethics:
Every individual possesses intrinsic worth and cannot be treated merely as an instrument for demonstrating state power. Public parading disregards this moral principle.
Care Ethics Approach:
The state bears a special responsibility toward persons in custody. Authorities must ensure protection from humiliation, abuse, and degrading treatment.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice:
Fair institutions must preserve equal liberties and procedural fairness. Public shaming before conviction compromises impartial justice and social equality.
Obstacles to Rights-Based Policing
Legacy of Colonial Policing Culture:
Certain enforcement practices continue to rely on intimidation and public spectacle rather than constitutional norms and citizen-centric policing.
Impact of Digital Media:
Images and videos shared online can permanently damage reputations, regardless of the eventual outcome of criminal proceedings.
Limited Enforcement of Guidelines:
Violations of arrest and custody protocols often go unpunished, reducing the deterrent effect of judicial directions.
Infrastructure Deficiencies:
The absence of adequate prisoner transport facilities in many regions results in unnecessary public exposure of detainees.
Measures for Reform
Compulsory Recording of Reasons:
Officers should document detailed grounds whenever restraints are imposed, enabling effective judicial review.
Strict Action Against Public Humiliation:
Officials responsible for parading accused persons or releasing arrest visuals should face disciplinary and contempt proceedings.
Modern Secure Transit Facilities:
Provision of enclosed escort vehicles can ensure safe transportation while protecting privacy and dignity.
Rights-Oriented Police Training:
Training curricula should emphasize constitutional values, human rights standards, and ethical policing practices.
Protection of Digital Identity:
Rules should prohibit publication of identifiable images and videos of under-trial persons except where expressly permitted by law.
Conclusion
The treatment of accused persons serves as a crucial test of constitutional governance. The power to arrest carries with it a corresponding duty to respect dignity, fairness, and due process. Ensuring that policing remains firmly anchored in constitutional morality is essential for preserving public trust in the criminal justice system.
Source : The Indian Express