Rights of the Accused: What the Law Says on Parading and Custodial Dignity

In early June 2026, the Calcutta High Court came down strongly against the practice of publicly parading accused persons through streets with ropes tied around their waists, with videos of such incidents circulating widely on social media. A bench of the High Court sought a report from the state police, observing that while police have the power to arrest a person, they cannot publicly humiliate or defame them. This case brings into sharp focus a fundamental question for exam aspirants: what does Indian law say about the dignity and rights of an accused person?

Constitutional Position: Article 21 and the Right to Dignity
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this to include the right to live with dignity. Crucially, this protection extends to every person, including someone who has been arrested or is facing trial. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — this principle, borrowed from natural justice, means that until a court convicts someone, the full weight of constitutional rights remains with them. Any state action that humiliates, degrades, or publicly shames an accused person without legal authority directly violates Article 21.

What the Law Permits — and Prohibits
No provision in Indian law authorises the public parading of an accused. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 43(3) permits a police officer to use handcuffs in specific, limited circumstances — for habitual offenders, those who have previously escaped custody, or those accused of serious offences such as murder, rape, terrorism, or human trafficking. Importantly, even within these categories, the provision uses the word may (not shall), meaning the officer must assess each case individually. There is no law that permits tying ropes around an accused person and walking them through public streets.

Key Supreme Court Rulings
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of custodial dignity on multiple occasions. In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Court declared routine handcuffing unconstitutional, holding that it violates Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court stated that handcuffing should be "the last refuge, not the routine regimen" and that any exception must be recorded in writing and explained before a magistrate. In Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995), the Court went further and categorically directed that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be applied to any prisoner — convicted or undertrial — while lodged in jail, during transport, or while being taken to and from court. These rulings form the backbone of custodial rights jurisprudence in India. The D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) guidelines, separately, laid down detailed requirements for lawful arrest and detention, including the requirement to inform the arrested person of grounds of arrest and to permit them access to a lawyer — all flowing from Article 21.

Recent High Court Observations (2026)
The Calcutta High Court's June 2026 observation is part of a broader pattern of courts across India reinforcing these protections. Earlier in 2026, the Rajasthan High Court held that compelling arrested persons to sit outside police stations in humiliating conditions while photographs were taken and circulated was "arbitrary, illegal" and a serious threat to the fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a separate matter, similarly held that any deliberate act of humiliation or public shaming of an accused, without lawful authority, is constitutionally impermissible.

Exam Takeaway
This topic is frequently tested in UPSC, SSC, and State PCS examinations under Polity, Fundamental Rights, and current affairs. Key points to remember: (1) Article 21 protects dignity of the accused, not just of free citizens. (2) The presumption of innocence is a constitutional norm. (3) BNSS Section 43(3) governs handcuffing in a limited, discretionary manner. (4) Prem Shankar Shukla (1980) and Citizens for Democracy (1995) are the landmark Supreme Court cases on custodial dignity. (5) D.K. Basu guidelines govern the conduct of arrest and detention. Courts have made clear that violations of these protections can attract contempt proceedings.