The Supreme Court on Friday heard the plea againt the growing practice of police authorities using official social media handles to publish photos, videos, and details of accused persons, warning that such actions risk undermining the fairness of the criminal justice system.
During the hearing, the petitioner highlighted instances where accused persons were “paraded with ropes, handcuffs” and their images widely circulated online by police accounts, arguing that this violates the right to dignity and fair trial under Article 21. “This is a very critical violation of Article 21… the entire function of criminal justice is undermined.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that guidelines already exist pursuant to earlier directions, noting that states had been given three months to frame rules. In response, Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan acknowledged the position but clarified at length that the existing framework, based on the PUCL matter, was limited to police briefings and did not specifically address the emerging issue of police using official social media handles to upload images and videos of accused persons.
Mr. Sankaranarayanan highlighted the broader systemic concern of “media trials,” noting that public perception shaped by such disclosures can affect faith in judicial outcomes:“People say, why are courts granting bail or acquitting? We saw the photos put out by the police.”
The court stressed that police must remain neutral and avoid biased communication. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed:
“Police communication must be reasonable so as not to expose bias. In the criminal justice system, the investigating agency is neither pro-victim nor pro-accused, it is an independent agency to unravel the truth and maintain balance. The manual is a positive step and will restrain over-enthusiastic statements suggesting guilt. But what happens when, despite this, a narrative is built by third parties and sections of the media, resulting in a media trial?”
Mr. Sankaranarayanan further highlighted the challenges posed by the digital age, submitting, “Today everybody is media… every mobile phone holder is a media person.” Taking note of the concern, the Chief Justice Surya Kant suggested a more systemic solution, observing, “Why don’t you think of a coordinating mechanism involving all three, police, general public and social media, who are responsible” thereby indicating the need for a broader, multi-stakeholder regulatory approach to address the issue.
Given the evolving nature of the issue, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw and file a comprehensive petition. Accepting this, the Court disposed of the present petition with liberty to file a comprehensive plea addressing allied concerns.