Rajasthan HC Rejects Police Explanation for Parading Accused in Women's Clothes, Bars Social Media Humiliation as Extrajudicial Punishment
Justice Farjand Ali found the Nagaur police's account implausible and held that orchestrated public humiliation of an accused amounts to unlawful punishment outside any statutory framework.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by Puranmal, a 44-year-old resident of Alwar, who alleged that police officials of Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur, forcibly shaved his head, dressed him in women's clothing, and paraded him through a crowded marketplace before producing him before a competent court. Justice Farjand Ali, sitting singly, rejected the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur's explanation as implausible and declared that any act of social media condemnation orchestrated by police authorities constitutes a form of punishment that finds no sanction in law. The court drew on its earlier directions in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2026] and issued a fresh set of binding directions to the police machinery.
What the Petitioner Alleged
According to the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Puranmal was taken from his residence on 30 July 2025 by persons in plain clothes who did not disclose their identity, produce a warrant, or state grounds of arrest. He was first taken to Police Station Sadar, Alwar, where he alleged custodial assault. He was then handed over to officials of Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur.
Before being produced before the competent court, the petitioner alleged that the Nagaur police forcibly shaved his head, dressed him in women's clothes, and paraded him through a crowded market. Photographs and videos of the incident were, he said, circulated on social media platforms and news channels, causing what the petition described as grave humiliation and irreparable damage to his dignity and reputation.
The petitioner further asserted that despite being implicated in multiple FIRs and subjected to custodial violence, no recovery had been effected from him and no material evidence connected him to the alleged offences. He invoked Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Police Explanation and Why the Court Rejected It
On a prior date, the court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur to appear in person and explain why action should not be taken against him. The Superintendent appeared and filed an explanation stating that Puranmal had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 195/2025 at Police Station Merta City, Nagaur, for offences of cheating. The explanation claimed that at the time of arrest, the petitioner and his co-accused were already wearing female attire to conceal their identity and evade arrest, and that they were brought to the police station in the same condition in which they were apprehended.
The Superintendent further stated that no custodial assault had been inflicted, that recoveries were effected during investigation, that the petitioner had several criminal antecedents, and that the photographs were captured by third persons during production before the court. The police denied circulating any photographs or videos on social media, asserting that only a routine press note had been issued.
Justice Farjand Ali was unpersuaded. The court found it wholly implausible that a person wishing to conceal his identity would voluntarily shave his head, dress in women's clothing, and then permit himself to be paraded through a crowded public market. The court observed that had the intention truly been to avoid identification, the natural conduct would have been to avoid any public exposure rather than invite a spectacle.
The court also examined FIR No. 195/2025 and noted that the complainant had already described the physical appearance, attire, and features of the accused at the time of the incident itself. The offence was stated to have occurred on 21 July 2025, while the arrest was effected on 30 July 2025. The court found it beyond the realm of reasonable probability that the accused had remained in women's attire for that prolonged duration and had themselves partially and crudely shaved their heads in the manner shown in the photographs on record.
The explanation, the court held, prima facie appeared to be an attempt to gloss over an incident that struck at the very core of human dignity and constitutional morality.
Constitutional Framework: Dignity, Presumption of Innocence, and Separation of Powers
Justice Farjand Ali reproduced at length the reasoning from his earlier order in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., which had already addressed the same issue. That order forms the doctrinal foundation of the present directions.
The court held that the criminal justice framework is neither silent nor ambiguous: every offence carries a prescribed procedure, a defined punishment, and a designated authority to adjudicate. No authority may assume powers not conferred by law. When power not vested by statute is exercised in a manner alien to the procedure established by law, it strikes at the foundation of legality and results in a manifest abuse of authority.
On the doctrine of constitutional morality, the court held that every action of the State must conform to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and respect for individual dignity. The argument that public disclosures are necessary to maintain confidence in the police was rejected as fundamentally flawed: confidence in the justice system is built upon adherence to due process, not upon spectacle.
The court addressed the separation of powers directly. The Legislature enacts law; the Executive enforces it; the Judiciary interprets it and dispenses justice. The police, as a limb of the Executive, cannot assume the role of judge. Determining guilt, adjudicating disputes, or pronouncing upon the rights of individuals is the exclusive domain of the Judiciary. Any transgression by the police into that sphere — whether by declaring an accused guilty in the public domain, conducting actions that prejudice a fair trial, or exercising powers not sanctioned by law — is without jurisdiction and strikes at due process.
The court described the growing tendency of police to publicise photographs of accused persons on social media, subject them to so-called “perp walks,” and exhibit them in a manner calculated to invite public opprobrium. At a stage where the individual is merely an accused and the presumption of innocence remains intact, such conduct assumes the character of a punitive measure operating outside the authority of law. The power to punish lies exclusively within the province of the Judiciary upon a finding of guilt established through due process.
Media Trial by Police and the Permanence of Digital Stigma
The court characterised the phenomenon as a “media trial by police” — not a by-product of independent journalistic enthusiasm but a State-engineered narrative, wherein the police machinery, through press conferences, orchestrated disclosures, circulation of photographs, and staged representations of arrest, projects an accused as culpable before due process has unfolded. The court cited the Supreme Court's deprecation of this tendency in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT and Ors., where it was observed that premature media disclosures by investigating officers jeopardise the integrity of investigation and may facilitate the escape of the actual offender.
The court drew on the Greek concept of the Ship of Theseus to illustrate the irreversibility of institutional humiliation: a person once exposed to such degradation does not remain the same thereafter. Photographs taken within a police station or images captured during custodial stripping inflict a deep and irreparable psychological scar. That injury does not stand effaced even where the individual is subsequently exonerated. The damage embeds itself into the psyche, impeding the natural course of cognitive and emotional evolution.
The court invoked the interplay between Articles 19, 20, and 21. Article 21 guarantees not merely life but a life with dignity, fairness, and due process. Article 20(3), which protects against self-incrimination, is rendered illusory when investigative agencies publicly attribute confessions or involvement to an accused before trial. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) must yield where its exercise results in interference with the administration of justice or denial of a fair trial, as contemplated under Article 19(2).
The court also referred to the Law Commission of India's 200th Report on “Trial by Media,” which documented the pernicious effects of prejudicial publicity, including distortion of bail proceedings, contamination of witness testimony, and irreversible tarnishing of reputation through publication of alleged confessions. The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi was cited for the proposition that trial by media is antithetical to the rule of law.
On the right to reputation as part of Article 21, the court relied on Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that reputation is an intrinsic part of the right to life and a necessary element of the right of a citizen under Article 21. The court also cited Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., where the Supreme Court condemned the act of forcing an accused to pose with self-incriminating placards and circulating such images as inhuman and violative of dignity, and held that constitutional courts are empowered to grant compensation for such violations under Articles 32 and 226. The court further referred to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. for the propositions that arrested persons do not forfeit fundamental rights and that even prisoners are entitled to protection against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
On the statutory framework, the court pointed to Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), which delineates the contours of lawful punishment: death, imprisonment for life, rigorous or simple imprisonment, forfeiture of property, fine, and community service. Public parading, social media exposure, and head-shaving appear nowhere in that list. Any attempt by an investigating agency to impose or facilitate a form of punishment not recognised by statute must, the court held, be viewed with serious constitutional concern.
Directions Issued
Drawing on the directions already issued in Islam Khan and applying them to the present case, Justice Farjand Ali issued the following directions:
First, strict adherence shall be maintained to all prescribed Standard Operating Procedures. Any deviation or breach shall invite appropriate and proportionate action against erring police officials in accordance with law.
Second, no individual possessing an unblemished record and lacking serious criminal antecedents shall be subjected to public parading, disrobing, or any form of degrading treatment.
Third, the court declared that any act of social media condemnation orchestrated or facilitated by police authorities resulting in public humiliation of an individual shall be construed as a form of punishment. Such punishment finds no sanction in law. Police officials are expressly prohibited from engaging in or abetting such practices, as they are not vested with the authority to impose punishment in any manner whatsoever.
Fourth, the guidelines shall be prominently displayed at all police stations and on the official web portals of the Police Department, including the websites of the Director General of Police and the Home Department, in the form of clear “Do's and Don'ts,” with reference to the present order, to ensure public awareness of rights and institutional accountability.
Fifth, the basic human rights of every arrestee, as well as of any individual entering a police station with a grievance, shall be scrupulously respected. No person shall be subjected to misbehaviour, mishandling, manhandling, harassment, or any form of coercion under any circumstances.
Outcome
The Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, who appeared in person, assured the court that due care and caution would be exercised by the police machinery to ensure no such incident is repeated and that the dignity of individuals in custody would be preserved in its true constitutional spirit. The police authorities submitted that there was no deliberate or malafide intention to malign the petitioner and that the photographs which surfaced on social media were not circulated with any oblique motive on the part of the department.
Taking into consideration the explanation tendered and the assurance extended before the court, Justice Farjand Ali refrained, for the present, from proceeding further against the officials concerned. The writ petition was disposed of. Liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law, including instituting proceedings for damages, compensation, or personal injury. The stay petition and all pending applications were also disposed of.