State Power vs Human Dignity: The Debate Over Public Shaming

#GS-2 #Indian Polity & Constitution #Constitution #Governance & Social Justice #Good Governance #Human Rights #Judiciary #Current Events #National

Why in News

A vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court criticized the West Bengal state police for publicly parading accused individuals with ropes around their waists.
The court strongly objected to the practice of circulating these humiliation videos on social media platforms.

Publicly shaming accused individuals shows a deep conflict in administration between retributive state power and constitutional morality.
Police forces often argue that public parades act as a visual deterrent to crime and help maintain public order.
However, ethics and law guarantee a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
Public shaming replaces the rule of law with informal and state-sponsored public humiliation.

Indian criminal law does not give any legal sanction for police to publicly parade or humiliate accused persons.
Section 43(3) of the BNSS permits handcuffing only in exceptional cases involving serious crimes like terrorism, organized crime, or habitual offenders.
The law uses the word “may” instead of “shall”, meaning handcuffs are discretionary rather than mandatory for police.
Section 9(2)(e) of the Prisoners Act Framework empowers states to frame rules for safe prisoner transport for security purposes only, not for public degradation.

In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Supreme Court held that routine handcuffing is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The court in Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995) prohibited indiscriminate chaining of prisoners to protect human dignity.
The Rajasthan High Court in Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2026) ruled that publicly displaying detainees for photographs violates Article 21.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Sangram Singh Rajoot v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) that marching an accused without justification causes unconstitutional humiliation.

Kantian Deontological Ethics states that every individual has inherent dignity and must never be treated merely as a means.
The Ethic of Care stresses that the state must protect vulnerable detainees under its custody from abuse.
Rawlsian Justice argues that a just society protects equal basic liberties and prevents social punishment before legal guilt is established.

Some police units continue using public intimidation tactics rooted in colonial policing traditions, often called the “Inspector Raj” mindset.
Arrest videos spread instantly on social media, causing irreversible reputational damage even if the person is later acquitted.
Violations of arrest guidelines rarely result in prompt disciplinary action due to weak accountability mechanisms.
Many police stations lack secure transport vehicles in rural areas, forcing officers to transport detainees publicly and risk rights violations.

Police officers must record mandatory written justifications whenever they use physical restraints on detainees.
Officers involved in parading suspects or sharing arrest videos should face swift disciplinary and contempt proceedings.
Governments should provide secure and enclosed transport vans to all police units for moving detainees safely.
Police academies must integrate human rights and constitutional morality into regular training programs.
Police departments should be prohibited from publishing unblurred images or videos of under-trials to protect privacy rights.