‘Strikes at core of dignity’: Court lambasts Alwar cops for humiliation of man by parading him in female attire

Justice Farjand Ali observed that constitutional morality requires every organ of the State to function within legally defined limits.

“Such conduct undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system and dilutes the constitutional promise of fairness and impartiality,” the court said on May 27, cautioning police authorities against using social humiliation as a form of punishment before trial.

‘No power to declare guilt’

• The high court warned against a growing tendency among police authorities to publicly carry out humiliation of accused persons through photographs, social media posts and “perp walks.”
• The court said such practices effectively amount to punishment through public humiliation before conviction and violate the principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• The power to investigate does not encompass the “power to declare guilt”, the court said, stressing that the judiciary alone has the authority to determine criminal liability.
• Justice Ali observed that constitutional morality requires every organ of the state to function within legally defined limits and warned that police authorities cannot “arrogate unto themselves the role of judge in the court of public opinion.”
• The judgment also criticised what it termed “media trial by police”, where investigating agencies allegedly shape public narratives through press conferences, staged disclosures and circulation of images even before judicial scrutiny begins.

Allegations of custodial humiliation

According to the petition, the accused was allegedly picked up from his residence on July 30, 2025, by unidentified persons in plain clothes without disclosure of identity or grounds of arrest.

The Alwar man claimed he was initially assaulted at a police station in Alwar before being handed over to Merta City police officials.

The petitioner alleged that before he was produced before a court, police personnel forcibly shaved his head, dressed him in women’s clothing and paraded him through a crowded marketplace, causing him humiliation.

Videos and photographs of the incident, the Alwar man claimed, were later circulated widely on social media and local news platforms, causing “grave humiliation” and permanent damage to his reputation.

The plea by the Alwar man further stated that despite being implicated in several FIRs, no recovery had been made from him, and no material evidence connected him to the alleged offences.

Police defend action, court unconvinced

• During the hearing, the superintendent of police, Nagaur, appeared before the court and submitted an explanation denying wrongdoing of humiliation by police officials.
• The police claimed that the accused, the Alwar man and a co-accused were already dressed in women’s attire at the time of arrest because they were allegedly trying to conceal their identities while evading arrest in the cheating case.
• Officials also denied allegations of custodial assault, humiliation and said the Alwar man were brought to the police station in the same condition in which they were apprehended.
• The department further contended that photographs and videos circulating online had been captured by third persons during court production and were not deliberately shared by police authorities.
• However, Justice Ali found the explanation difficult to accept.
• It does not appeal to reason, nor does it “comport with ordinary human conduct”, the court observed, noting that a person genuinely attempting to avoid identification would not voluntarily move around publicly in women’s attire with a partially shaved head of the Alwar man.
• The court also pointed out that the complainant in the FIR had already described the physical appearance and clothing of the accused persons at the time of the alleged offence on July 21, 2025, making the police version appear “wholly implausible.”
• The explanation sought to be offered, therefore, prima facie appears to be an attempt to gloss over an incident of humiliation which “strikes at the very core of human dignity and constitutional morality,” the court remarked.

Directions to Rajasthan Police

While disposing of the petition, the high court issued a series of directions aimed at preventing similar incidents of public humiliation like that of Alwar man in future. The court directed strict adherence to standard operating procedures by police officials and warned that violations would invite action against erring personnel.

It further ordered that:

• Individuals without serious criminal antecedents should not be publicly paraded or subjected to degrading treatment.
• Police authorities must not orchestrate or facilitate social media condemnation of accused persons.
• “Dos and Don’ts” relating to the treatment of accused persons should be prominently displayed at police stations and on official police websites.
• Human dignity of all persons in police custody must be preserved at all times.
• The Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, assured the court that due care and caution would be exercised in future and that no such incident would be repeated.

Taking note of the assurance, the high court refrained from initiating immediate proceedings against the officials concerned. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner, the Alwar man to pursue legal remedies, including compensation, damages and personal injury claims.

Court cites Supreme Court precedents

The high court referred extensively to Supreme Court rulings, including D K Basu vs State of West Bengal, Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs State of Chhattisgarh and Umesh Kumar vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

Relying on these precedents, the court reiterated that arrested individuals including the Alwar man do not lose their constitutional protections merely because criminal allegations have been levelled against them.

The judgment also referred to the Law Commission of India’s 200th Report on “Trial by Media,” noting that prejudicial publicity can contaminate investigations, influence witnesses and permanently tarnish reputations even in cases where accused persons are eventually acquitted.

The court further observed that humiliation and public shaming in the digital era create lasting psychological scars because online circulation of images and videos often becomes permanent.