Policing the line between publicity and justice

Why in news?

A Supreme Court PIL seeking a nationwide police media protocol has revived debate on publishing accused persons’ photographs before trial. 

UPSC Relevance

Mains: GS-II – Fundamental rights and judicial interpretation; Role of police and criminal justice reforms; 

GS-IV – Probity, dignity, presumption of innocence, ethical dilemmas in policing.

Author’s views in the editorial

• Arguments for publishing photos
  • Wanted-person photos and reward notices have solved crimes.
  • Helps trace absconders and missing persons; multiplies thin police capacity (India has far fewer police per lakh than the sanctioned strength).
  • Public order and deterrence; public has a right to know about dangerous persons at large.
  • Legitimate aim under Puttaswamy if necessary and proportionate.
• Arguments against
  • Photos of handcuffed accused, sometimes with placards, go viral within minutes – often before they are produced before a magistrate.
  • Violates presumption of innocence; leads to media trial and social boycott even after acquittal.
  • No clear legal basis – fails the “legality” limb of Puttaswamy.
  • Digital permanence: images cannot be recalled; reputational harm is irreversible.
  • Rajasthan High Court called such practices “institutional humiliation”.
  • Misused for police publicity and political optics; can target marginalised groups.
  • Can harm investigation itself – e.g., spoils test identification parades (TIP) of witnesses.
•  The core conflict
  • Three interests collide: effective investigation and public safety (public help in tracing fugitives), the public’s right to know and press freedom (Art. 19(1)(a)), and the accused’s dignity, privacy and fair trial (Art. 21). An arrest is not a conviction – but a viral photo acts like one.
• “The justification  for publishing is strong; the legal architecture is weak.” Police need a clear legal basis, not a habit inherited from precedent.
• Current law is a patchwork: No single statute permits or prohibits publishing photos of accused persons.
• Institutional steps: In January 2026, SC asked States to frame policies within three months based on the amicus’s Police Manual for Media Briefing.
• Global practice: US – “wanted” notices are public-record exceptions but carefully worded (“alleged”, “wanted for questioning”). UK – withholds arrested persons’ identities altogether.
• Test question for any disclosure according to the author : Is the disclosure necessary to the investigation, or merely convenient to the narrative or showcasing police achievements?

Legal framework at a glance

• Constitution: Art. 21 – dignity, privacy, fair trial; Art. 20(3) – no self-incrimination; Art. 22 – rights on arrest; Seventh Schedule – police and public order are State subjects (List II, Entries 1–2).
• Sec. 84 BNSS (Sec. 82 CrPC): Courts can proclaim absconders and publish proclamations; photos are attached by practice. But this applies only after a warrant fails – not at the investigation stage.
• Sec. 43(3) BNSS – handcuffing allowed only for certain categories (habitual offenders, escapees, serious crimes).
• Investigation stage: Relies on general powers – every person must help police; IO can examine anyone. Photo publicity is a digital version of the colonial-era “Hue and Cry Notice” in State Police Manuals.
• Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Replaced Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920; allows taking photos, fingerprints etc.; NCRB stores records up to 75 years; wrongly cited as allowing publication and is actually silent on publication.
• Police Act, 1861 and State Police Manuals/Regulations: Reward notices, Hue and Cry Notices – administrative, not statutory rules on photo publicity.
• Absolute bars:
  • Sec. 74 JJ Act, 2015 (no disclosure of child’s identity); 
  • Sec. 72 BNS – deals with the prohibition and punishment for disclosing the identity of victims in certain sexual and related offenses.
• DPDP Act, 2023: Exempts processing for prevention and investigation of offences – so data law gives no real protection here.

Key judgments

• Kali Ram v State of HP (1973): Presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of criminal law.
• Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Admin (1980): Routine handcuffing violates Art. 21 dignity – directly relevant to handcuffed-accused photos.
• Sahara v SEBI (2012): Courts can order postponement of reporting to protect fair trial.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): Privacy is a fundamental right; any intrusion must pass legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.
• Right to be forgotten: Recognised by some High Courts (e.g., Karnataka HC in Vasunathan, 2017; Delhi HC in Jorawar Singh Mundy, 2021) – relevant for takedown after acquittal.
• 15 Jan 2026 (2026 INSC 79) – Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh asked States to frame policies in three months, using amicus Gopal Sankaranarayanan’s manual.

Way ahead

• Codified national protocol (author) – ideally a model law/rules adopted by States, since police is a State subject.
• Necessity test before release; written reasons by a senior officer (SP rank).
• Blackout categories like juveniles, sexual-offence survivors, and ordinary arrested adults unless absconding from publication.
• Careful wording: “accused”, “wanted for questioning” – never “criminal”; no placards or parading.
• Sunset clause: Mandatory takedown after arrest of absconder, discharge or acquittal.
• Accountability: Departmental action and compensation for violations; oversight by Police Complaints Authorities (Prakash Singh, 2006).
• Training: Media cells and training modules via Bureau of Police Research and Development. 

Practice MCQs 

Q1. With reference to police in India, consider:

1. ‘Police’ and ‘Public order’ are subjects in the State List.

2. The Bureau of Police Research and Development functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. The Police Act, 1861 was abolished after independence to replace colonial police laws.

Which of the above are correct?  (a) 1 and 2 only  (b) 2 and 3 only  (c) 1 and 3 only  (d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (a)

Mains practice questions

Media trials undermine the presumption of innocence. Discuss the role of the police in preventing them. (10 marks, 150 words)