Public Parading of Accused Is Impermissible, Violates Human Rights: Calcutta High Court Voices Strong Concern
Court Questions Police Practice as Hearing Highlights Dignity and Constitutional Rights of Persons in Custody
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday made significant oral observations against the practice of publicly parading accused persons, stating that such conduct is “impermissible” and amounts to an infringement of human rights. The remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by Soukat Molla, who alleged that he was publicly displayed by police during the course of an investigation.
The case has drawn nationwide attention because it raises broader questions about the constitutional rights of accused persons and the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies during criminal investigations. Although an accused may face serious allegations, the Court indicated that constitutional protections remain intact until guilt is established through due process.
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that a disturbing culture has emerged in which arrested individuals are routinely exposed before the media and the public after their arrest. According to the submissions, such practices damage an individual’s dignity and reputation even before a trial is conducted.
Responding to these arguments, the Bench orally observed that public parading of accused persons is impermissible and infringes human rights. The Court’s remarks reinforce the principle that every person, regardless of the allegations against them, is entitled to protection of dignity under the Constitution.
The State Government, however, disputed the allegation of deliberate public parading. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the accused had only been taken to the alleged place of occurrence for reconstruction of events and identification of the crime scene. According to the State, members of the public had gathered at the location, but authorities ensured that no untoward incident occurred during the exercise.
The hearing also revealed differences over the role of investigative agencies. The State informed the Court that the National Investigation Agency had initially taken custody of the accused, while the petitioner’s counsel questioned whether responsibility for the alleged public exposure rested with the central agency or the State police.
While examining the petition, the Bench also questioned the maintainability of the prayer seeking quashing of the proceedings, noting that the petitioner was already in judicial custody. The Court further observed that the report placed before it did not clearly specify the penal provisions involved in the case, indicating that further examination would be necessary before deciding the issues raised.
The observations come only days after the same High Court emphasized that the State has a duty to protect the life, dignity and honour of persons in its custody. In an earlier matter concerning attacks on accused persons by protesters, the Court had directed the State to frame guidelines for the safe transportation of prisoners to prevent public humiliation and violence.
Legal experts believe these successive observations could influence future policing practices by reinforcing that investigations must be conducted without compromising the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judiciary has repeatedly stressed that criminal investigations cannot be allowed to become instruments of public spectacle or punishment before conviction.
The matter has been adjourned for further hearing. The Court is expected to examine the factual allegations surrounding the alleged public parading, the role of the investigating agencies, and the legal remedies available to the petitioner in subsequent proceedings.
