Publicity or Justice? Why Police Need a Law on Publishing Photographs of the Accused

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Hindu

Resources for this Article

Download PDF Print-ready A4 notes · Free

The Lift Line

“Is the disclosure necessary to the investigation, or merely convenient to the narrative?”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

This op-ed, by a serving police chief, examines a daily practice with deep constitutional implications: the release of photographs of arrested persons. It connects criminal procedure (the BNSS and the 2022 identification law), fundamental rights (Article 21, dignity, privacy, presumption of innocence) and police reform. It complements our deep dive on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on re-arrest after an Article 22 breach.

GS Paper 2: Fundamental rights; structure and functioning of the judiciary; police reforms. GS Paper 4: Ethics in public administration; dignity; probity; accountability.

Concept	Meaning	Why it is testable
Presumption of innocence	An accused is treated as innocent until proved guilty	Part of Article 21’s fair-trial guarantee
Proclamation of absconder	A court order requiring a person evading a warrant to appear	Section 84, BNSS 2023 (Section 82, old CrPC)
Hue and cry notice	A police notice describing a wanted person, in State police manuals	Pre-Independence origin
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022	Law on taking and storing measurements, including photographs	Does not authorise publication
Media trial	Public judgment of guilt by the media before a court decides	Threat to a fair trial

Background and Context

The trigger. A public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeks a nationwide protocol for police media briefings, which, the author writes, has forced the question: under what law do the police publish photographs, should they, and where should they stop?

The legal patchwork, as set out by the author:

Instrument	What it covers	What it does not cover
Section 84, BNSS 2023	Court proclamations for absconders; a photograph is attached by settled practice	Publicity at the investigation stage
General powers of the investigating officer	Seeking information and assistance from the public	An express power to publish photographs
Hue and cry notices (State police manuals)	Descriptions of wanted persons, broad enough to include photographs	A modern, uniform standard
State police regulations under the Police Act, 1861	Reward announcements, sanctioned by officers from the SHO up to the State government	Limits on publicity after arrest
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022	Taking, storing and using photographs for identification	Circulating them

The institutions. The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) prepared a draft manual on media briefings and shared it with the Ministry of Home Affairs in July 2024. In January 2026, the author notes, the Supreme Court recorded that the amicus had prepared a Police Manual for Media Briefing and directed States to frame policies on it within three months.

The absolute limits. A child in conflict with the law cannot be identified except in the child’s best interest and with the permission of the Juvenile Justice Board, and the identity of a sexual assault survivor is protected by law.

The Analysis

1. A strong justification. Wanted notices and rewards have solved crimes, recovered missing children and traced fugitives years later. The public, alerted, can do what a stretched police force cannot. The author does not want this lost.

2. A weak legal architecture. What is needed is “a clear legal basis, not a habit inherited from mere precedent”. The practice has grown from proclamations and colonial manuals, not from a law that weighs its costs.

3. The rights at stake. Article 21 jurisprudence has sharpened. Broadcasting an arrested person’s face before any charge is framed treats arrest as guilt; digital circulation is “permanent, searchable and indifferent to later acquittal”. The Rajasthan High Court called such practices “institutional humiliation”.

4. A scale, not a switch. At one end is legitimate investigative need: crime prevention, public order, tracing absconders. At the other is showcasing police achievement, which serves “police optics at the accused’s expense” and can prejudice the trial.

5. What others do. American agencies treat wanted notices as public records but frame them carefully (“alleged”, “wanted for questioning”); British policing, the author writes, more conservatively withholds arrested persons’ identities altogether.

6. The proposal. Not a ban, but a codified, uniform national protocol: proportionate, need-based disclosure; blackout categories; time-bound review and takedown once the purpose is served or the accused is discharged or acquitted; and uniform application across States.

The precision that earns marks. Distinguish the power to take a photograph (the 2022 identification law) from the power to publish it (no clear statute). Many answers cite the 2022 Act as permission to publish; the author’s point is that it is not.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Law:

• Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 82, old CrPC) provides for proclamation of absconders.
• The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 governs taking and storing measurements, including photographs.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 bars disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with the law.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of certain sexual offences punishable.
• Police and public order are subjects in the State List of the Seventh Schedule.

Institutions:

• The BPR&D drafted a police media briefing manual and shared it with the MHA in July 2024.
• In January 2026 the Supreme Court directed States to frame media-briefing policies within three months, per the author.
• The Law Commission’s 200th Report (2006) examined trial by media and free speech versus fair trial.

Prelims, the traps:

• The 2022 identification Act covers taking photographs, not publishing them.
• Proclamation under Section 84, BNSS is a court process, triggered only after a warrant fails.
• The presumption of innocence is not written into the Constitution; courts read it into Article 21’s fair-trial guarantee.

⚠️ Watch the trap: Protecting the identity of an accused adult is a matter of policy and Article 21 balance; protecting a child or a sexual-offence survivor is a statutory command.

The Debate

For publicity. Photographs help identify suspects and trace absconders, reassure the public that action has been taken, and deter crime. Restrictions could be used to shield police conduct from scrutiny.

Against unregulated publicity. An arrest is not a conviction. Once online, images are permanent and outlast acquittals; they can prejudice witnesses and judges, and they punish before trial.

The balanced verdict. Keep disclosure where it serves the investigation, drop it where it serves only publicity, and write the difference into a uniform protocol with review and takedown. That protects both the public interest and the accused’s rights.

How to Think About This

Ask whether a practice has a legal home. Much of administration runs on habit. When a practice affects rights, ask: which law authorises it, who decides, what limits apply, and how can the affected person seek a remedy? If the answers are unclear, the case for codification follows. The same test applies to surveillance, internet shutdowns and demolitions.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Practice: police release photographs of arrested persons, often before production before a magistrate.
• Law: no single statute; Section 84 BNSS (court proclamations), hue and cry notices, State police regulations; the 2022 Act covers taking photographs, not publishing them.
• Rights: Article 21 dignity, privacy and the presumption of innocence; permanent digital exposure.
• Institutions: BPR&D draft manual (2024); Supreme Court direction to States (January 2026).
• Way forward: a national protocol with need-based disclosure, blackout categories and takedown.

Sources: The Hindu, BPR&D

Source: Publicity or Justice? Why Police Need a Law on Publishing Photographs of the Accused — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

Rupin Sharma, Director General of Police, Nagaland, argues that the police practice of publishing photographs of accused persons rests on a weak and scattered legal basis, and that India needs a codified national protocol that permits necessary disclosure for investigation while preventing prejudicial publicity.

✓ Supporting

• Photographs of wanted persons and reward notices have solved crimes, found missing children and traced fugitives, so an outright ban would be self-defeating.
• No single statute permits or prohibits publication: Section 84 of the BNSS covers court proclamations of absconders, colonial-era hue and cry provisions in State police manuals cover investigation-stage notices, and the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 governs taking photographs, not circulating them.
• Courts have sharpened Article 21 protections: broadcasting an arrested person’s face before charges can cause irreversible harm, which the Rajasthan High Court called “institutional humiliation”.
• The BPR&D drafted a media briefing manual in 2024, and in January 2026 the Supreme Court directed States to frame policies on a police media manual within three months.

⚠ Counter

Transparency about arrests reassures the public and deters crime; restrictions on police communication could be used to hide police conduct, and a free press will publish images regardless of what the police release.

→ Way Forward

A uniform national protocol distinguishing need-based disclosure from showcasing, blackout categories for juveniles and sexual-offence complainants, time-bound review and takedown after the purpose is served or on acquittal, and one test before any release: is it necessary to the investigation?