Presumption of Innocence & Fair Trial (Articles 19 & 21)
India’s Constitution safeguards both the right to freedom of speech and expression (enumerated in Article 19(1)(a)) and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, encompassing the entitlement to dignity, impartial investigation, and an equitable trial (as per Article 21). Courts in India have consistently emphasized that journalistic reporting should not jeopardize an ongoing trial or erode the fundamental principle of presumed innocence.
Trial by Media & Media Ethics
In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the practice of media publicizing suspects, releasing their pictures prior to identification parades, and engaging in speculative journalism, deeming these actions a threat to fair judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. The judiciary underscored that the media’s role is to provide information, not to act as arbiters of guilt or innocence.
Police Briefing Guidelines & Restrictions
During September 2023, a Supreme Court bench instructed the government to formulate uniform guidelines for police press conferences, aiming to guarantee that information is disseminated judiciously and does not contribute to early assumptions of culpability. Furthermore, the Court observed that immediate post-arrest briefings by the police could potentially violate privacy rights and compromise ongoing investigations (as reported by Business Standard).
The proposed guidelines were intended to cover aspects such as:
- Individuals authorized to communicate with the press,
- The appropriate timing for such communications,
- Permissible subject matter for disclosure,
- Restrictions, including the imperative not to disclose names, images, specifics of the investigation, or unsubstantiated opinions prior to trial.
Privacy via Puttaswamy Judgment
The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment established privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, extending a legitimate expectation of privacy to accused persons during investigation and pre-conviction phases.
While Section 74 in the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, strictly prohibits the disclosure of sexual offense victims’ identities, including photographs, no explicit legislation similarly bars the publication of images of accused individuals. Nevertheless, Indian courts and ethical standards strongly advise against such publication, especially before identification parades, to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial.
Internationally, human rights frameworks consistently emphasize fair trial processes and human dignity. Decisions like Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 by the UK Supreme Court affirm that individuals under investigation hold an expectation of privacy until formally charged, with disclosure of investigative details potentially infringing their rights.
Although no binding international treaty explicitly prohibits widespread publication of accused persons’ photographs, the guiding principles of fair trial, the right to privacy, and the presumption of innocence advocate for cautious and responsible practices worldwide.
Practical Guidance for Media & Authorities
Recommended Practices:
- Disseminate photographs of accused individuals only after formal charges are filed, and solely when demonstrably pertinent to public safety or for identification of a missing suspect.
- Refrain from publishing images prior to identification parades and avoid captions that imply guilt.
- When visual material is deemed crucial, rely exclusively on authenticated court records or publicly available documents.
- Ensure impartial reporting to prevent “trial by media” and uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Scenarios for Abstention from Publication:
Media and authorities should abstain from publication in the following circumstances:
- If accused persons have not yet been presented before a court or participated in an identification parade.
- If publication poses a risk of prejudicing the investigation or subsequent trial.
- If it constitutes a privacy violation without serving a compelling and clearly defined public interest.
Supreme Court Quotes & Impact
The Supreme Court, in the Manu Sharma case, stated, “The presumption of innocence is a legal premise and ought not to be dismantled… by means of a media trial” (Aequitas Victoria).
Regarding briefing guidelines, the Court emphasized, “Police briefings should not transform into a media trial… avoid prematurely judging guilt” (Business Standard).
The Puttaswamy ruling firmly establishes the right to privacy under Article 21, thereby restricting unwarranted revelations during ongoing investigations.
The Legal Position Summarized
| Stage Of Proceedings | Photo Publication | Legal And Judicial Stance |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Identification Parade | Not Advised | Infringes Upon Fair Trial Principles And Ethical Journalistic Standards |
| Post-Formal Charge | Permissible (If Pertinent) |
Court Records Are Publicly Accessible; Privacy Considerations Are Balanced Against Public Interest |
| Sexual Offence Victim Photos | Prohibited | Section 74 BNS Serves As A Protective Measure |
Indian and International Law
India does not possess one sweeping law that universally forbids the publication of an accused person’s photograph. Yet, a strong legal system, rooted in constitutional rights, heavily discourages such actions, particularly in the initial stages of an investigation. The 2017 Puttaswamy judgment was pivotal, establishing privacy as a fundamental right that also applies to those accused of crimes. Courts, as seen prominently in the 2010 Manu Sharma case, have condemned the early release of images and speculative journalism, arguing that these can compromise a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
While Section 74 BNS (formerly 228A IPC) strictly prohibits the identification of sexual offense victims, no similar direct prohibition applies to accused individuals. Despite this, ethical norms and judicial guidance, including the Supreme Court’s September 2023 recommendation for police press conference guidelines, underscore the need for restraint to uphold judicial integrity and protect individual rights.
No explicit international law or treaty bans the widespread publication of photographs of accused individuals. However, international human rights frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR, implicitly discourage such practices. These instruments emphasize the fundamental rights to privacy (ICCPR Article 17), a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence (both ICCPR Article 14).
Regional and national court decisions, like the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Bloomberg LP v ZXC, further reinforce that individuals under investigation maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy. While not an outright prohibition, these principles advocate for caution and restraint in media dissemination to prevent prejudice and uphold judicial integrity.
An acquitted individual whose photo was disseminated by police may seek damages for reputational harm, as this constitutes an infringement of their Right to Reputation, an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While no specific statute governs these claims, individuals can pursue civil suits for malicious prosecution (requiring proof of police malice and lack of probable cause) or defamation.
Notably, the Supreme Court, in cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), has awarded public law compensation for fundamental rights violations even without specific legislation, demonstrating the judiciary’s recognition of the need to address such harms. The Law Commission’s 277th Report further supports the establishment of a formal legal framework for such compensation.
Conclusion
While Indian legislation does not impose an outright prohibition on the publication of photographs of individuals who have been accused, both legal and constitutional protections heavily advise against such disclosures, especially during the initial stages of criminal proceedings:
- The rights to privacy, a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence are all enshrined and protected by the Constitution.
- Past judicial decisions (such as the Manu Sharma case) and proposed regulatory frameworks encourage the media and law enforcement agencies to exercise restraint.
- Although victims of sexual offenses receive explicit protection under statutory law (BNS 74), accused individuals are not automatically guaranteed anonymity; however, courts advocate for ethical moderation in reporting.
Therefore, any determination to publish such material must strike a balance between public interest and the right to freedom of expression, against the rights of the accused and the overall integrity of the judicial system.
