I. Introduction: In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, the dignity of every individual—whether free or in custody—forms the cornerstone of justice. Fundamental rights are not conditional upon a person being proven innocent or guilty. Recent incidents such as the one reported in Jammu, where an accused was paraded publicly with shoes around his neck in the presence of the public and under the watch of law enforcement, starkly remind us how easily constitutional protections can be compromised. This kind of public humiliation bypasses the judicial process and results in irreparable harm to the individual. It also undermines public faith in due process and the legal institutions responsible for upholding justice. This article explores the growing phenomenon of trial by media, public condemnation of the accused, and the constitutional implications. It calls for the reaffirmation of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and the inherent dignity of every individual, including those under investigation. The Constitution of India recognizes these as non-negotiable values, and no exception exists for public shaming.
II. The Jammu Incident; A Case of Public Humiliation: On June 24, 2025, a man was reportedly arrested in Jammu and paraded with shoes garlanded around his neck—a symbolic form of public shaming. Videos and photographs of this act were circulated widely on social media platforms. The presence of police officials at the scene further added gravity to the incident, not because of their participation, but due to the perception that state machinery allowed such a spectacle to occur. Importantly, the accused had not yet been tried in a court of law. No conviction had been recorded. This situation illustrates a disturbing trend in which accused individuals are punished by society at large even before they are given an opportunity to present their defense in a court of law. Such acts disregard the fundamental tenets of justice and fairness embedded in our Constitution and legal system.
III. Constitutional Protections Of The Accused
1. Article 21: Right To Life, Dignity: Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This Article has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with dignity, humane treatment, and a fair process. The protection of this Article extends to all persons, regardless of whether they are accused of a crime.
In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and this cannot be stripped away merely because a person is accused. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court established that any procedure which deprives a person of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. A fair procedure cannot coexist with acts of public shaming or punishment outside of judicial supervision.
2. Article 20(3); Protection Against Self-Incrimination: Article 20(3) guarantees that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. While public shaming may not directly compel testimony, it can lead to social coercion and psychological pressure that amounts to indirect compulsion. It compromises the freedom of the accused to speak, defend themselves, and seek legal advice without duress or intimidation. The protection provided under Article 20(3) is vital in maintaining the integrity of the justice process and ensuring that guilt is determined only through valid legal evidence, not through public opinion or media broadcasts.
3. Article 22; Rights of the Arrested: Article 22 outlines several procedural safeguards for individuals who are arrested:
They must be informed of the grounds for their arrest. They must be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. They must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. These guarantees ensure that the criminal process remains within legal bounds and that no arbitrary actions are taken. Public punishment or humiliation finds no place within this constitutional framework.
IV. Judicial Response To Media Trials, Public Humiliation: The Indian judiciary has consistently emphasized that justice must not only be done but also seen to be done within the boundaries of the law. Media trials and public condemnation of individuals under investigation can derail the course of justice. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down exhaustive guidelines to be followed during arrests and detentions to prevent misuse of power and to protect the dignity of the individual. The Court made it clear that even those in custody must be treated in a humane and civilized manner. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), while dealing with freedom of expression online, the Court noted that unregulated speech, particularly when it involves criminal allegations, could lead to irreversible harm. This holds particularly true in criminal matters where the accused is yet to be tried. In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), the Court expressed concern over media’s role in influencing public perception and judicial outcomes. It was observed that sensational reporting without trial completion can compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The Court in Sahara India Real Estate v. SEBI (2012) also acknowledged the need to sometimes postpone media reporting in sensitive cases to prevent prejudice to the trial and protect the rights of the accused.
“In a country governed by the rule of law, it is crucial to respect the accused’s rights. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with constitutional provisions, reaffirms individual dignity. True justice ensures no innocent faces unjust harm, upholding accused rights showcases commitment to fairness in our democratic republic.”
V. Trial By Media; A Threat To Fair Trial And Presumption Of Innocence: The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is central to the criminal justice system. Media trials, in which the press or social platforms circulate images, videos, and commentaries on the accused, often leave little room for objective trial proceedings. This parallel process of media adjudication can: Prejudice Public Opinion Against The Accused, Influence witnesses and evidence, Create societal pressure on investigating officers, Undermine judicial neutrality. The BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), which has replaced the Indian Penal Code, maintains a strong focus on due process and the rights of the accused. Under the BNS, punishment and guilt must be determined solely by the courts, not by societal or media influence.
VI. Public Humiliation, Its Legal Implications: Publicly humiliating an accused individual is not sanctioned by any provision of the BNS or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The law does not authorize any form of extrajudicial punishment or symbolic acts meant to shame the accused. Such actions may be interpreted as: A breach of constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21, A violation of human dignity and personal liberty, A potential act of misconduct or overreach if carried out or allowed by public officials. India is also a signatory to several international conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates the fair treatment of accused persons and prohibits degrading treatment.
VII. Role Of Police: Lawful Custodians Of Rights: The police play an essential role in the criminal justice system. They are tasked not only with maintaining law and order but also with upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of all individuals. It is therefore important to recognize that their role must be grounded in constitutional principles and human dignity. The Supreme Court, in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), issued directions to improve accountability and professionalism in police functioning. The objective was to ensure that law enforcement acts lawfully, impartially, and in alignment with constitutional mandates. Instances where accused individuals are subjected to public humiliation call for reinforcement of this vision through training and awareness.
VIII. Psychological,Social Consequences: Public shaming of accused individuals has long-term and deeply harmful effects. Even if the person is later acquitted, the damage done to their social standing and mental health is often irreversible. The consequences include: Loss of reputation and credibility, Emotional distress and psychological trauma,
Disruption of family life and employment, Risk of social isolation or self-harm. These outcomes are contrary to the reformative and rehabilitative ideals of justice.
IX. Recommendations: To prevent recurrence of incidents like the one in Jammu, the following measures are recommended:
1. Implementation of Arrest Guidelines: Law enforcement agencies must strictly follow Supreme Court guidelines regarding arrests, as laid down in D.K. Basu and reinforced in subsequent cases.
2. Training and Sensitization: Police and media personnel must receive training in constitutional values, human rights, and the importance of the presumption of innocence.
3. Legal Awareness: Public awareness campaigns must be initiated to educate people about the rights of accused persons and the dangers of public humiliation.
4. Responsible Media Reporting: Media outlets should adopt ethical standards in reporting criminal cases and avoid sensationalism that could prejudice ongoing investigations.
5. Mechanism for Redress: Authorities should establish swift internal and judicial mIechanisms to address violations involving public shaming.
X. Conclusion: The incident in Jammu serves as a reminder that constitutional values must be preserved not only in courtrooms but also in public spaces. In a country governed by the rule of law, it is essential to ensure that the rights of the accused are respected. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations, reaffirms the dignity of every individual. True justice lies not just in punishing the guilty but in ensuring that no innocent person is unjustly harmed by unlawful actions, societal bias, or premature condemnation. Upholding the rights of the accused is a measure of our commitment to fairness, dignity, and the ideals of our democratic republic.
(The author is a Research Scholar at Law Department Kashmir University Srinagar. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Syed Wajid Ul Zafar
[email protected]
