Rajasthan High Court Rulings Target Police Public Shaming Practices
Source:sabrangindia ↗
Why It Matters
This article focuses on critical constitutional rights (such as the Right to Dignity under Article 21), police reforms, and the rule of law. The recent Rajasthan High Court rulings (Islam Khan & Puranmal, 2025) make it highly relevant for RPSC RAS aspirants to understand the intersection of human rights, judicial directives, and executive actions at the state level.
Summary
The article discusses the persistent practice of police 'public shaming' and parading of suspects in India, contrasting it with constitutional directives. It highlights the landmark Rajasthan High Court judgment, Islam Khan and Others v. State of Rajasthan (May 5, 2025), which laid down strict guidelines against police parading and social media humiliation, citing violations of Article 21 (dignity and privacy) and the separation of powers. The article reviews key historical cases, including Prem Shankar Shukla (1980) and D.K. Basu (1997), while also noting the persistent compliance gap between judicial pronouncements and daily police practices, as exemplified by the dilution of guidelines in subsequent cases like Puranmal v. State of Rajasthan.
Key Points
- The Rajasthan High Court, in the landmark judgment Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (May 5, 2025), ruled that public shaming, parading, and social media trial of suspects by police constitute illegal and informal punishment.
- The judgment relies on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, declaring that determining guilt is a judicial role, not a police function, and emphasizes the constitutional presumption of innocence.
- Public shaming directly violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity and privacy. This aligns with historical precedents like Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) on handcuffing restrictions and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) on arrest procedures.
- Other Indian High Courts have taken similar stances, such as the Allahabad High Court ordering the removal of 'name and shame' banners in Lucknow (2020) and the Gujarat High Court holding police officers in contempt for public beatings in 2023.
- Despite these guidelines, a significant implementation gap exists, as shown in the subsequent Puranmal v. State of Rajasthan (2025) case, where the court accepted mere police assurances of compliance without taking penal action, thereby diluting the enforceability of these guidelines.
Important Terms
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
A fundamental right ensuring no person is deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law, widely interpreted to include rights to dignity and privacy.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity/Fundamental Rights); tests the evolution of constitutional rights, judicial activism, and human dignity.
D.K. Basu Guidelines on Arrest
A set of mandatory procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court of India in 1997 to prevent custodial torture and regulate the manner of arrest and detention by police.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity/Police Reforms); tests safeguards against arbitrary detention and the protection of civil liberties.
Protection of Human Rights Act 1993
A parliamentary act providing for the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions, and Human Rights Courts to protect life, liberty, equality, and dignity.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Statutory Bodies); tests the institutional mechanisms for addressing human rights violations and police excesses.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
A fundamental right guaranteeing equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons, prohibiting arbitrary state action and discrimination.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity/Fundamental Rights); tests principles of rule of law, reasonable classification, and non-arbitrariness in governance.
Supreme Court of India
The highest judicial court and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, acting as the guardian of fundamental rights and the ultimate interpreter of laws.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Judiciary); tests constitutional jurisdiction, judicial review, and the separation of powers.
Rajasthan High Court
The apex judicial body in the state of Rajasthan, exercising original, appellate, and writ jurisdiction to uphold constitutional values and safeguard individual rights locally.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Judiciary); tests state-level judicial administration, powers of high courts under Article 226, and notable state-specific judgments.
Prelims Trap
The Chairperson and members of a State Human Rights Commission are appointed and can be removed by the Governor of the state.
While the Governor appoints SHRC members, only the President of India can remove them, ensuring independence from local executive pressure.
Static Concepts Connected
What is the constitutional basis of the Separation of Powers in India?
- Article 50 directive: Directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive, placed under the non-enforceable Directive Principles (Part IV).
- Functional division: India avoids strict water-tight separation, favoring a system of joint responsibility and constitutional checks and balances instead.
- Judicial review: Articles 13, 32, and 226 empower courts to review executive and legislative actions to prevent arbitrary overreach.
What are the jurisdiction and structural safeguards of State Human Rights Commissions?
- Limited jurisdiction: SHRCs can only investigate violations concerning subjects in the State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III).
- Appointment system: Appointed by the Governor based on a committee led by the Chief Minister and legislative leaders.
- Presidential removal: Despite being state-level bodies, members can only be removed by the President, safeguarding their operational independence.
Cross-Topic Patterns
Digital shaming + Right to be Forgotten
Police uploading mugshots online intersects with Article 21 privacy rights and the right to be forgotten under data protection laws.
Police Reforms + Prakash Singh Case
The persistence of unauthorized public parades highlights the implementation gap in the landmark Prakash Singh (2006) police reform directives.
Judicial pronouncements on arrest (D.K. Basu) and handcuffing (Prem Shankar) are prime targets for multi-statement Article 21 questions.
Linked PYQs · 3
Linked PYQs · 3
- 2023RPSC_PRELIMSGS1
Identify the incorrect statement regarding the Menaka Gandhi case, 1978, concerning the judicial interpretation of Article 21.
- 2025RPSC_PRELIMSGS1
Which of the following chairpersons of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission completed a five-year term?
- 2018RPSC_PRELIMSGS1
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission? (A) It was formed by a notification of the Government of Rajasthan dated January 18, 1999. (B) The commission became operational in March, 2000. (C) According to the Human Rights Protection (Amendment) Act, 2006, the commission provides for a Chairman and 3 members. (D) One of its former chairpersons was a retired judge of the Supreme Court. Select the correct answer from the code given below: Code:
