Policing the Line Between Publicity and Justice

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Governance

Introduction

Police publicity can support investigations by helping identify persons, trace fugitives and recover missing children. However, photographs of arrested persons can spread rapidly through social media, sometimes before they appear before a magistrate. This raises concerns about legal authority, privacy, dignity and the presumption of innocence. The central issue is to distinguish disclosure that serves a genuine investigative need from publicity that presents an accused as guilty before trial.

Why Police Publicity Matters

1.     Public Assistance in Investigation: Publishing photographs can help police obtain information from citizens when they need identification, witnesses or other investigative leads.
2.     Tracing Wanted Persons: Photographs and reward notices can help locate wanted persons and fugitives, including those whose trails have gone cold for years.
3.     Recovery of Missing Children: Public circulation of photographs can assist in identifying and recovering missing children through wider public participation.
4.     Supporting Limited Police Capacity: Public cooperation can extend police investigative efforts when a thinly stretched police force cannot independently reach all potential sources of information.
5.     Crime Prevention and Public Order: Disclosure can serve legitimate purposes such as crime prevention, public order and law-and-order requirements when public assistance is genuinely needed.
6.     Rewards as an Investigative Tool: Reward announcements can encourage people to provide information about wanted persons and support efforts to trace them.

Existing Legal and Constitutional Framework

1.     No Single Governing Statute: India has no single statute that expressly permits or prohibits police from publishing photographs of accused persons.
2.     BNSS Proclamation of Absconders: Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allows courts to proclaim absconders and publish proclamations in newspapers after a warrant fails.
3.     Photographs in Court Proclamations: Section 84 does not expressly mention photographs, but attaching them has become settled practice because photographs can help secure the person’s appearance.
4.     Investigation-Stage Disclosure: Publicity during investigation relies on general investigative powers and established police practices rather than a specific provision expressly authorising social-media publication.
5.     Hue and Cry Notices: State Police Manuals contain pre-Independence “Hue and Cry Notice” provisions whose broad descriptions can plausibly cover photographs and rewards.
6.     Reward Regulations: State Police Regulations under the Police Act, 1861 generally govern rewards, with sanctioning authority ranging from the Station House Officer to the State government.
7.     Identification Act, 2022: The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 regulates taking, storing and using measurements including photographs, but does not authorise their public circulation.
8.     Article 21 and Presumption of Innocence: Constitutional protection of privacy, dignity and reputation, along with the presumption of innocence, places important limits on how accused persons may be publicly presented.
9.     Emerging Media-Briefing Framework: The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) prepared a draft media-briefing manual in July 2024, and the Supreme Court in January 2026 directed States to evolve appropriate policies.

Judicial Interpretation of Police Publicity

1. Madhya Pradesh High Court:

•   On Article 21: In Arun Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the court held that privacy, reputation and dignity are protected under Article 21.
•   No Public Display of Accused: The court found no legal justification for publicly displaying photographs of accused persons, including history-sheeters, even inside police stations.
•   Limits on Executive Instructions: The court held that police authorities cannot use executive instructions to override fundamental rights without adequate legal authority.
•   Public Shaming as Deterrence: The court rejected public shaming as a valid deterrent and stressed that criminal justice must respect human dignity and constitutional values.

2. Rajasthan High Court:

•   On Humiliation: The Rajasthan High Court described the public display of arrested persons in degrading circumstances as “institutional humiliation”, highlighting the harm caused by such exposure.
•   Presumption of Innocence: Courts have emphasised that an arrested person remains an accused, not a convict, until guilt is established through a fair trial.

3. Supreme Court:

•   On Media Trials: The Supreme Court has cautioned that selective police disclosures can influence public opinion and contribute to a media trial, as police do not determine guilt.
•   On Media Briefings: In January 2026, the Supreme Court directed States to develop appropriate police media-briefing policies based on the Police Manual for Media Briefing prepared by the amicus.

Legal and Constitutional Limits on Police Publicity

1.     Presumption of Innocence: An arrested person remains an accused until guilt is established through a fair trial, so arrest alone cannot establish criminality.
2.     Article 21 Protection: Privacy, dignity and reputation are protected under Article 21 and remain relevant even when a person is accused of an offence.
3.     Irreversible Reputational Harm: Publicly displaying an accused person’s photograph can cause serious harm that may continue even if the person is later acquitted.
4.     Digital Permanence: Social-media circulation is permanent and searchable, making the consequences of premature publicity difficult to reverse.
5.     Juvenile Protection: A juvenile in conflict with law cannot be identified except in the child’s best interest and with permission of the Juvenile Justice Board.
6.     Sexual-Offence Survivor Protection: The identity of a sexual assault survivor is protected by law and therefore cannot be disclosed through police publicity.

Balancing Investigative Necessity with Individual Rights

1. Legitimate Investigative Purpose: Public disclosure can support crime prevention, public order, law-and-order purposes, identification, tracing absconders and finding witnesses.
2.     Public Assistance as a Police Tool: Photographs and notices can enable citizens to provide information that police may not obtain through their own limited resources.
3.     Police Achievement Publicity: Disclosure becomes problematic when photographs are released mainly to showcase arrests or police achievements rather than to meet an investigative need.
4.     Investigation Versus Publicity: The central distinction is between disclosure required to assist an investigation and disclosure that mainly creates a public narrative around an accused.
5.     Adult Accused as the Grey Area: The most difficult question concerns the ordinary adult who has been accused and arrested but has not yet been tried.
6.     No Outright Ban: A complete prohibition on public assistance would be unwarranted because photographs and wanted notices can genuinely help investigations.

Way Forward

1.     Uniform National Protocol: India needs a codified and uniform national protocol governing police media briefings and public disclosure.
2.     Clear Legal Basis: The framework should clearly specify when police can publish photographs instead of relying on inherited practices and broad administrative powers.
3.     Proportionate Disclosure: Disclosure should be based on necessity and proportionality, rather than convenience or publicity.
4.     Blackout Categories: The framework should maintain strict protection for juveniles and sexual-offence complainants.
5.     Time-Bound Takedown: Published material should be reviewed and removed once the investigative purpose ends or an accused is discharged or acquitted.
6.     Uniform State Policies: Common standards should apply across States to prevent different practices for similar situations.
7.     Necessity Test: Before releasing a photograph, police should ask whether the disclosure is necessary for the investigation or merely convenient to the narrative.

Conclusion

Police publicity can support investigation, but unchecked exposure can damage dignity, reputation and the presumption of innocence. India needs a clear, uniform and legally backed framework that permits necessary public assistance while preventing prejudicial publicity and protecting vulnerable persons. Ultimately, police disclosure should serve justice and investigation, not public judgement before trial.

Question for practice:

Discuss the need to balance police publicity with the rights and dignity of accused persons in India.

Source: The Hindu