Accused Should Not Be Subjected To Public Condemnation Through Media Exposure & Staged Photographs: Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines
The Bench noted that social trials orchestrated by police through digital exposure violate the fundamental right to dignity & the presumption of innocence.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench has observed that the police have no statutory authority to subject arrested individuals to public humiliation by circulating their photographs or videos on social media platforms. Furthermore, it observed that forcing an arrestee to sit in undignified conditions or disseminating their images in a degrading state creates permanent digital scars.
Accordingly, the Court issued a series of binding guidelines expressly prohibiting police officials from taking or sharing photographs and videos of arrested persons on social media or with the press. It directed that such practices shall be construed as a form of punishment with no legal sanction and mandated that these "Do’s and Don’ts" be prominently displayed at all police stations and official web portals. Finally, the Court ordered that the human rights of every individual entering a police station must be scrupulously respected.
Justice Farjand Ali observed, “This Court unequivocally declares that 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. Police officials are, therefore, expressly prohibited from engaging in or abetting such practices, as they are not vested with the authority to impose punishment in any manner whatsoever”.
Advocate Rajjak Khan appeared or the petitioners and Deepak Chaudhary, AAG appeared for the respondents, while Advocates Devkinandan Vyas and Yogendra Singh Charan appeared as amicus curiae.
The petitioners approached the Court following their arrest in connection with an FIR registered in Jaisalmer relating to a public protest. They alleged that subsequent to their arrest, the police subjected them to degrading treatment, including forcing them to sit in undignified conditions and capturing photographs and videos.
These images, including those of women and unmarried girls, were widely circulated on official police social media handles and in local newspapers, portraying them as criminals before any trial.
The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to restrain the authorities from disseminating such content. On January 20, 2026, the Court passed an interim order directing the immediate removal of the impugned photographs from all web portals and social media platforms.
In response, the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, and the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, filed compliance reports and additional affidavits confirming the deletion of the content and the issuance of fresh guidelines to police personnel.
The Court held that the criminal justice framework provides for specific procedures and punishments, and no authority can assume powers not conferred by law.
“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. Such acts transcend the immediate moment of indignity and acquire a permanence in the digital sphere, thereby perpetuating stigma and social condemnation. This injury does not stand effaced even where the individual is subsequently exonerated of all allegations. The damage, once done, embeds itself into the psyche, impeding the natural course of cognitive and emotional evolution of the individual”, the Bench noted.
“…The act of parading an accused before the media, the capturing and dissemination of photographs or videos within the confines of a police station, and the convening of press briefings wherein guilt is insinuated or declared, together constitute a systematic erosion of the individual’s dignity and reputation. In the digital age, the consequences of such actions are neither fleeting nor reversible; rather, they assume a permanent character, leaving indelible scars upon the psyche and social standing of the individual, even in cases where eventual acquittal is secured. The right to life under Article 21 of the COI is not to be understood in a narrow or pedantic sense, but as encompassing the right to live with dignity, free from humiliation, stigma, and unwarranted public exposure”, the Bench further observed.
Cause Title: Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Rajjak Khan, Sarwar Khan, Advocates.
Respondents: Deepak Chaudhary, AAG, N.S. Chandawat, AGA.