Context: Photographs of arrested or wanted persons are increasingly circulated through social media and police briefings, sometimes before the accused is produced before a magistrate.
- A Supreme Court PIL seeking a nationwide protocol for police-media briefings has raised questions about the legal basis, necessity and limits of such publicity.
- Publicising photographs can assist investigations by helping identify suspects, locate fugitives, recover missing persons and obtain witnesses; however, premature publicity can also undermine the presumption of innocence and the dignity of the accused.
Existing Legal Framework
- There is no single statute that comprehensively permits or prohibits police publication of photographs of accused persons; the present framework consists of criminal-procedure provisions, police regulations and older police manuals.
- Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 82 CrPC] permits a court to issue a proclamation against a person who has absconded after a warrant cannot be executed and allows publication of the proclamation in newspapers.
- Although Section 84 does not specifically mention photographs, photographs are commonly attached to such proclamations to facilitate identification and secure the person's appearance.
- This judicial process, however, does not by itself authorise publicity of an accused during the investigation stage, before the proclamation process is triggered.
- Police also rely on their general investigative powers and State Police Manuals, including the traditional Hue and Cry system, to circulate descriptions or photographs to obtain public assistance in identifying suspects, witnesses or absconders.
- Reward announcements generally derive from State Police Regulations and administrative powers, with approval ranging from the SHO to higher authorities or the State government depending on the applicable rules.
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
- The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 regulates the collection, preservation and use of specified measurements for identification and investigation, including photographs.
- However, the Act does not itself provide a general power to publicly circulate those photographs; collection and identification are distinct from public disclosure.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns
- Article 21 protects life and personal liberty and has been interpreted to include dignity and protection against arbitrary State action.
- The presumption of innocence requires that an accused be treated as innocent until guilt is established through the criminal justice process.
- Publicly displaying an arrested person's image as though guilt has already been established can cause reputational and dignitary harm even if the person is subsequently discharged or acquitted.
- Digital publicity creates additional concerns because images are permanent, searchable and easily reproduced, making subsequent removal of the stigma difficult.
- The Rajasthan High Court has described certain forms of such publicity as “institutional humiliation”, highlighting the dignity concerns involved.
Supreme Court and Police Media-Briefing Framework
- The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) prepared a draft manual on police media briefings and shared it with the Ministry of Home Affairs in July 2024.
- In January 2026, the Supreme Court noted that the amicus curiae had prepared a Police Manual for Media Briefing and directed States to formulate appropriate policies based on it within three months.
- The emerging approach therefore seeks to establish a uniform framework for police-media interaction, rather than leaving disclosure entirely to individual police officers or State practices.
Categories with Stronger Legal Protection
- Children in conflict with law: Their identity cannot ordinarily be disclosed, subject to the statutory exceptions and safeguards under juvenile-justice law.
- Sexual-offence survivors: Their identity is protected by law and cannot be publicly disclosed in a manner that identifies them.
- The more difficult question concerns an ordinary adult who has been arrested but has neither been formally tried nor convicted.
Legitimate Investigation vs. Police Publicity
- Disclosure exists on a spectrum: at one end is legitimate investigative necessity, such as locating an absconding accused, identifying an unknown suspect or seeking information from the public.
- At the other end is publicity intended primarily to showcase police performance or arrests, which provides limited investigative value while potentially prejudicing the accused.
- The key distinction should therefore be necessity and proportionality, rather than treating every police photograph as either automatically permissible or automatically prohibited.
International Approaches
- In the United States, wanted notices may receive protection under public-record/privacy exceptions, but police agencies commonly use careful language such as “alleged” or “wanted for questioning” to avoid presenting guilt as established.
- British policing generally follows a more restrictive approach towards identifying arrested persons, reflecting greater emphasis on protecting their identity before trial.
Way Forward: Need for a Uniform Protocol
- A complete ban on public appeals would undermine legitimate investigative objectives; instead, India needs a codified and uniform national protocol governing police disclosure.
- The protocol should distinguish necessary, proportionate investigation-related disclosure from publicity that primarily serves institutional image-building.
- It should establish mandatory non-disclosure categories, particularly for juveniles and sexual-offence complainants.
- Photographs and identifying information should undergo time-bound review and removal once the investigative purpose ends or the person is discharged or acquitted, subject to legitimate legal requirements for retention.
- Clear rules should apply uniformly across States to reduce arbitrary or inconsistent police practices.
