Disclosure of personal information of suspects to media, displaying photos in newspapers/social media violative of Art 21: Madhya Pradesh HC

In a pertinent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday held that the disclosure of a suspect's personal information to the media or display of their photographs in newspapers and social media is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India..The judgment passed by Justice GS Ahluwalia reads as follows,."Accordingly, in exercise of suo motu power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, clause 6B, 8 and 11 of the circular dated 2-1-2014 issued by the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh, so far as it relates to production of victims and suspects before the media, as well as disclosure of personal informations of the suspects to the media or display their photographs in newspapers or on any digital platform are hereby quashed being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."Madhya Pradesh High Court.While observing the same, the High Court has struck down provisions of a circular issued by the State Police in 2014 allowing for disclosure and publication of such information..The Single Bench also held that parading of suspects in general public is violative of Article 21..Factual Background and submissions of parties.The petition was filed by a person who alleged that his photographs were made viral on social media, while he was in police custody..On August 14 this year, the respondent police officers took the petitioner into custody, and got his uncovered face photographed published in newspapers as well as on social media, by projecting him as a hardcore criminal..On a complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, it was later found that the petitioner was an innocent person having no criminal antecedents, and that he was released owing to mistaken identity. Accordingly, he was released..The police officer who had arrested the petitioner was placed under suspension and the said news was published in all the newspapers. Later, it was found out that his suspension was revoked. .Aggrived by this, the petitioner filed a plea before the High Court. After notice was issued in the petition, a meagre fine of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the police officers..When asked about the law under which photographs of the uncovered face of an accused can be published, the State submitted a circular issued by the Director General of Police in 2014. The circular mentioned that sharing of information and photos pertaining to an accused with the media was permitted subject to various restrictions. .Clause 6A of the said circular states that the suspect/accused should not be produced before the media. However, as per clause 8, the police was at liberty to produce the suspect as well as the victim before the media after the recording of the police statement. Further, Clause 6B of the circular prohibited the display of photographs of an accused till the Test Identification Parade is conducted..Court's observations.The following were the questions framed by the Court in the matter:.After going through the 2014 circular, the Court primarily observed that the same contradicted itself."On one hand, it speaks about protecting the fundamental rights of an accused, but on the other hand, it gives liberty to the policemen to violate the fundamental rights of the suspects/accused", opined the Bench. .After referring to a number of court decisions on the topic, the Bench held that privacy/reputation/dignity of a citizen of India is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be infringed, unless and until a restriction is imposed by or under the authority of law. ."The Privacy/reputation/dignity of any person, including a hardcore cirminal cannot be violated, unless and until the reasonable restriction permits to do so. Even if a person is a hardcore criminal, but still his details/history sheet/survellience has to be kept discreet and there is no question of posting the photographs of history sheeters even at police stations."Madhya Pradesh High Court.Adding on, the Bench opined,."Therefore, tarnishing the reputation of a person, by the police, on the basis of its own investigation, amounts to prejudging the correctness of the allegations, which is unknown to Indian Law, and a person is presumed to be innocent, unless and until he is convicted. Thus, without there being any statutory provision putting reasonable restrictions, the police cannot violate the fundamental rights i.e., Privacy/dignity/reputation of a citizen of India, on the basis of an executive instruction issued by the Director General of Police.".Apart from causing gross violation to their fundamental rights, producing the victims and suspects before the media would pave way for "media trials", said the Bench..Putting in a word of advice for the police officers, the Single Bench added that they must concentrate on ensuring the timely appearance of the witnesses before the trial court rather than disclosing the identity of the suspected persons in print, social or digital media. "Therefore, instead of harassing or humiliating a person by parading him in general public immediately after his arrest, or by publishing their photographs in the news paper or on any digital platform, the police must ensure that not only the witnesses are given adequate security from the anti-social elements but they also appear before the Trial Court without any delay so that the allegations made against a person can be tested in accordance with law.".In the light of these observations, the Court ordered the Director-General of Police to immediately issue necessary instructions to all subordinates to ensure that there shall not be any disclosure of the identity of suspects and victims under any circumstances. .Additionally, the Court also directed the implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme in its letter and spirit..On the point of the illegal detention, the Court noted that the petitioner was wrongly taken into custody as some other person with similar name and details was wanted in the said criminal case. .This being the case, there was no occasion for the police to publish the uncovered face of the petitioner in the newspaper or on social media, thereby projecting him as a criminal, added the Bench. .The Bench also issued a show cause notice to the respondent police officers to explain as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of court..On the question of monetary compensation for infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights, the Court said the following,."It is clear that violation of Fundamental Right of a person due to police misconduct, would not only give rise to a liability under Criminal, Tort and Public Law but pecuniary compensation can also be awarded." .Making this observation, the Court apprised that the above aspect would be considered after deciding the question of involvement of the respondents. .[Read the Judgment]