POLICING PUBLICITY AND JUSTICE: MEDIA PROTOCOLS, ACCUSED RIGHTS

Why In News?

The Supreme Court is adjudicating petitions challenging the routine police practice of parading arrested persons before media cameras and publishing their photographs on social media platforms.

What Is Legal Controversy Surrounding Police Publicity?

Investigation-Stage Disclosures: Police frequently invoke general investigative authority to leak suspects' mugshots, names, and alleged confessions to reporters before filing a charge sheet.

Public Assistance vs Pre-Trial Shaming: Publicising unidentified suspects or absconders aids public safety. However, exposing individuals already in custody shifts the focus from crime detection to premature public shaming.

Compromising Test Identification Parades (TIP): Leaking an arrested suspect's photo to the media destroys the evidentiary value of subsequent judicial identification parades under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

Constitutional Safeguards Under Article 21 

Right to Human Dignity: In Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 protects the right to live with human dignity, shielding accused persons from state-orchestrated public humiliation.

Presumption of Innocence as a Human Right: An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction; pre-trial public shaming creates an informal presumption of guilt that infects public perception.

Guarantee of a Fair Trial: Media trials fueled by selective police leaks prejudice judicial proceedings, intimidate defense witnesses, and compromise the fairness guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 14.

Informational Privacy and Reputation: In K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), the nine-judge bench recognized the right to control one's image and personal identity as integral to constitutional privacy.

Concerns about Unregulated Police Publicity

Trial by Media and Public Vilification: Unilateral police press conferences create media frenzy, resulting in public vilification before judicial scrutiny begins.

Permanent Digital Stigmatization: Digital footprints ensure that photographs of arrested persons remain indexed on internet search engines indefinitely, permanently destroying professional and social prospects.

Irreparable Harm Post-Acquittal: While an arrest receives widespread prime-time publicity, eventual judicial acquittal rarely receives equal media coverage, leaving individuals socially ostracized.

Institutional Misuse and Vigilantism: Premature disclosures expose suspects' families to physical harassment, mob violence, and extrajudicial retaliation.

Way Forward  

Enforce The Proportionality and Necessity Test: Law enforcement agencies must demonstrate that publishing an individual's image is indispensable for solving the crime and that less intrusive measures have failed.

• Example: Doctrine of Proportionality in Policing, mandating that any intrusion into personal privacy under Article 21 must pursue a legitimate state aim and employ the least restrictive means.

Total Prohibition on Accused Media Parades: The Ministry of Home Affairs must issue binding directives penalizing officers who produce handcuffed suspects before media cameras.

• Example: Kerala Police Act Guidelines on Media Disclosures, barring police personnel from presenting accused persons before press reporters during preliminary custody.

Implement Statutory Right to Be Forgotten Post-Acquittal: State mechanisms must mandate the automatic deletion of published police advisories and photographs from official digital handles upon court acquittal.

Appoint Dedicated Institutional Public Information Officers: Police stations must channel all verified disclosures exclusively through designated, trained spokespersons rather than individual investigating officers.

• Example: Model Police Media Protocol, standardizing structured written press bulletins without revealing premature speculative investigation details.

Conclusion

Upholding the rule of law requires insulating criminal justice from media sensationalism, ensuring police communication respects the presumption of innocence and human dignity under the Constitution.

Source: THEHINDU