PIL In Supreme Court Seeks 'Digital D.K. Basu' Guidelines Against Police Social Media Posts On Accused Before Trial

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea argues that police departments across the country have increasingly resorted to posting images, videos and narratives of persons merely accused of offences, thereby effectively pronouncing them guilty before any judicial determination.

Describing the practice as a "digital perp-walk", the petition submits that investigating agencies have assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor, media and judge simultaneously, resulting in "public conviction" long before charges are framed or evidence is tested in court.

The petitioner Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami contends that such conduct amounts to an extra-judicial punishment and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by destroying the presumption of innocence, which the Supreme Court has consistently recognised as a fundamental facet of criminal jurisprudence.

Referring to hearings conducted by a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court in March 2026 on police media briefings, the petition notes that the Court had already expressed concern that the existing Handbook on Police Media Briefings did not adequately regulate police conduct on digital platforms. It further relies upon the Chief Justice's observation during those proceedings that online coercive practices resembled a form of "digital arrest."

The plea argues that when police themselves publish photographs and videos of accused persons through official handles, the State creates an institutional form of "digital arrest", permanently stigmatising individuals irrespective of the eventual outcome of criminal proceedings.

The petition also places reliance on the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2026), where similar police conduct was described as "institutional humiliation" and a direct assault on human dignity protected under Article 21.

According to the petitioner, even an eventual acquittal cannot undo the reputational harm caused once such content enters the digital domain.

Clarifying that the petition is not directed against media freedom, the petitioner states that the challenge is confined exclusively to State action, arguing that official police communication must remain consistent with constitutional limitations applicable to public authorities.

The plea further contends that publication of identifying material by police may also amount to criminal contempt of court, as such disclosures create substantial prejudice to pending judicial proceedings and undermine public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.

Invoking the proportionality doctrine laid down in Modern Dental College and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, the petitioner argues that even if the State has a legitimate interest in informing the public, such objectives can be achieved through far less restrictive measures, including anonymised disclosures or limited publication without revealing an accused person's identity.

The petition additionally asserts that continued availability of such posts violates the right to be forgotten, particularly where the accused is ultimately discharged or acquitted, leaving permanent digital records authored by the State.

Seeking what it describes as a "Digital D.K. Basu" framework, the petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to frame binding guidelines regulating police use of social media.

Among the reliefs sought are a declaration that publication of photographs or identifying material of accused persons prior to conviction is unconstitutional; an absolute prohibition on "digital perp-walks" except in narrowly defined public safety emergencies authorised by senior officers and subjected to prompt judicial review; mandatory disclaimers emphasising that an accused is presumed innocent; prior approval by senior police officers before any publication; automatic removal of content relating to persons acquitted or discharged; prohibition on supplying such material to media organisations without judicial approval; creation of State-level oversight mechanisms; and personal liability, including departmental action and monetary penalties, against erring officials.

The petition also seeks interim directions restraining further publication of such material by police authorities and directing disclosure of all official police social media accounts carrying such content.

The petitioner has argued that, much like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal filled a constitutional vacuum concerning custodial safeguards, the present case calls for judicial intervention to regulate police conduct in the digital era and preserve the constitutional promise of a fair criminal justice system.