For this article:

3 Apr 2026·Source: The Indian Express
5 min
Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesEDITORIAL

Upholding Dignity: Why 'Walk of Shame' by Police is Unconstitutional

The practice of parading accused individuals violates fundamental rights and human dignity, highlighting the urgent need for police reforms and accountability.

UPSCSSC

Quick Revision

1.

The police practice of 'walk of shame' involves publicly parading accused individuals.

2.

This practice is considered a violation of the right to dignity.

3.

The right to dignity is an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

4.

The 'walk of shame' amounts to extra-judicial punishment.

5.

It undermines the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

6.

Indian courts have repeatedly condemned this practice as unconstitutional.

7.

The practice reflects a lack of professionalism and accountability in the police force.

Visual Insights

Concerns Regarding Police 'Walk of Shame' Practice

This dashboard highlights key concerns raised against the police practice of parading accused individuals, emphasizing its unconstitutional nature.

Violation of Article 21
Right to Dignity

The practice is seen as a direct affront to the right to live with human dignity, a fundamental aspect of Article 21.

Undermines Presumption of Innocence
Public Spectacle

Parading accused individuals before conviction creates a public spectacle, violating the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Extra-judicial Punishment
Before Trial

This practice amounts to a form of public punishment before a legal trial has concluded, bypassing due process.

Mains & Interview Focus

Don't miss it!

The practice of police conducting a 'walk of shame' for accused individuals represents a profound institutional failure, directly undermining the foundational principles of India's criminal justice system. Such actions, often driven by a misguided desire for public spectacle or perceived deterrence, are not only unconstitutional but also counterproductive to effective law enforcement. They erode public trust and perpetuate a culture of impunity within certain sections of the police force.

At its core, this practice violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with human dignity. The public parading of an accused person, often handcuffed and exposed to media glare, constitutes an extra-judicial punishment and a blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence. This principle, though not explicitly enumerated, is a cornerstone of our legal framework, derived from Article 21 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Repeated judicial pronouncements, including those from the Supreme Court, have unequivocally condemned these 'walks of shame'. For instance, rulings have consistently emphasized that an accused, even a hardened criminal, is entitled to dignity. Yet, the persistence of this practice indicates a significant gap between judicial directives and ground-level implementation. This highlights the urgent need for comprehensive police reforms, focusing on training, sensitization, and accountability mechanisms.

Effective policing relies on meticulous investigation and adherence to due process, not on public shaming. Countries like the UK and Canada, for example, have stringent guidelines against identifying suspects before conviction, prioritizing privacy and fair trial rights. India's police forces must internalize that their role is to investigate and present evidence, not to pronounce guilt or inflict public humiliation. A robust internal disciplinary system, coupled with clear guidelines from state police headquarters, is imperative to eradicate this regressive practice.

Editorial Analysis

The author strongly condemns the police practice of "walk of shame" as unconstitutional and a violation of human dignity. They argue that it amounts to extra-judicial punishment and undermines the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', advocating for strict adherence to legal procedures and respect for individual rights.

Main Arguments:

  1. The 'walk of shame' infringes upon the fundamental right to dignity, which is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. It subjects individuals, who are merely accused, to public humiliation and spectacle, treating them as guilty before due process.
  2. This practice is a form of extra-judicial punishment, prejudicing the public against the accused and violating the core tenet of the criminal justice system that a person is presumed innocent until their guilt is established in a court of law.
  3. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly criticized and deemed such practices illegal and unconstitutional, yet they persist. This highlights a disregard for judicial pronouncements by law enforcement agencies.
  4. The practice reflects a lack of professionalism and accountability within the police force. Instead of focusing on lawful investigation and prosecution, it resorts to public shaming, which is counterproductive to justice and tarnishes the image of law enforcement.
  5. The media often plays a role in amplifying these spectacles, further contributing to the public trial and humiliation of accused individuals, thereby undermining journalistic ethics and the right to a fair trial.

Conclusion

The police must cease the practice of 'walk of shame' and operate strictly within the framework of the law, upholding constitutional values and respecting the dignity and rights of all individuals, including those accused of crimes. It calls for greater police accountability and adherence to judicial directives.

Policy Implications

Strict directives and training for police forces to prohibit 'walk of shame' practices. Implementation of mechanisms for greater police accountability for violations of fundamental rights. Reiteration and enforcement of judicial pronouncements against public parading of accused individuals. Encouragement of ethical reporting by media regarding accused individuals.

Exam Angles

1.

GS Paper II: Governance - Police reforms, accountability, rule of law, constitutional rights, legislative changes affecting vulnerable groups.

2.

GS Paper II: Polity - Fundamental Rights (Article 21, Article 17), constitutional interpretation, judicial activism vs. legislative action.

3.

GS Paper I: Social Justice - Discrimination, rights of marginalized communities (transgender persons, caste-based discrimination), social reform movements.

4.

Potential Mains Question: Analyze the tension between police effectiveness and the protection of individual rights in the context of public order maintenance. Discuss the constitutional implications of practices like the 'walk of shame' and the legislative changes impacting transgender rights.

View Detailed Summary

Summary

The police sometimes parade people accused of crimes in public, which is called a 'walk of shame'. This practice is wrong because it humiliates individuals and treats them as guilty before a court has decided, violating their basic right to dignity and fairness under the law. It's like punishing someone before they've even had a proper trial.

The Nashik Police in Maharashtra have been criticized for a practice involving parading accused individuals in public, termed a "walk of shame," which has also been observed in parts of Thane. This trend, initiated by Nashik Commissioner Sandeep Karnik, involves circulating videos of alleged offenders, often appearing to be in distress, with slogans like "Nashik zilla kaydyacha balekilla (Nashik district, a fortress of law and order)." This practice has drawn sharp criticism for violating due process and the rule of law, undermining the principle of being innocent until proven guilty, and portraying the police as vigilantes rather than guardians of justice. Inspector General (law and order) Manoj Kumar Sharma stated there were no official instructions for such videos. The practice is seen as a dangerous pursuit of virality and publicity at the expense of institutional propriety and legal fairness. Experts argue that shame and public spectacle are not substitutes for judicial pronouncements and that such actions are reminiscent of regressive practices rather than modern policing. The editorial calls for accountability for officers involved and emphasizes that films like "Dabangg" and "Singham" are fiction, not police manuals. This issue is relevant to Polity and Governance, particularly concerning police reforms and constitutional rights.

In a related development, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, has been introduced, marking a departure from a decade of judicial expansion of transgender rights based on self-identification. The Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA judgment recognized the right to self-identification as a fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). High Courts have consistently upheld this principle, directing authorities to update names and genders on official documents based on self-identification without medical proof. However, the 2026 Amendment Act mandates a certificate of transgender identity issued by a district magistrate based on a medical board's recommendation, explicitly requiring surgery for a gender change certificate and removing categories like "trans-man" and "trans-woman." This move contradicts judicial pronouncements and has been criticized as a setback for transgender rights, potentially reducing legal recognition to a state-mediated entitlement. The Rajasthan High Court has noted this departure from the constitutional baseline, urging that statutory developments should not dilute constitutional guarantees. This is relevant to Polity and Governance, particularly concerning fundamental rights and legislative changes affecting marginalized communities.

Background

The practice of parading accused individuals, often referred to as a "walk of shame," has been a contentious issue, raising concerns about due process and human dignity. Historically, public shaming has been used as a form of punishment, but modern legal systems, particularly in constitutional democracies, emphasize the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Indian Constitution, through Article 21, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to dignity. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, was enacted to provide for the protection of the rights of transgender persons and their welfare. This Act aimed to address the discrimination faced by the transgender community and provide legal recognition for their gender identity. It followed several landmark judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA judgment, which recognized the right to self-identification of gender as a fundamental right. Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form, making it a punishable offense. This article is a cornerstone of the Right to Equality, aiming to eradicate caste-based discrimination and ensure social justice and dignity for all citizens. The enforcement of Article 17 is supported by acts like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Latest Developments

Recent developments highlight a concerning trend where police forces in Maharashtra, specifically Nashik and Thane, are parading accused individuals in public, often creating viral videos. This practice, while not officially sanctioned, has been defended by some officials as a means to deter crime, but it is widely condemned for violating the fundamental rights of the accused and undermining the judicial process.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, represents a significant legislative shift, moving away from the principle of self-identification towards a medical and administrative certification process for gender recognition. This amendment has been met with criticism from transgender rights advocates and legal experts who argue it contradicts established jurisprudence and imposes undue burdens on transgender individuals. The Rajasthan High Court has acknowledged this departure, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional guarantees.

Separately, concerns have been raised about the misuse of laws like counterterrorism and hate speech legislation to target activists and journalists, and the imposition of internet shutdowns that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Human Rights Watch has reported on the government's crackdown on civil society and media, and policies that discriminate against religious minorities. The implementation of laws and policies affecting marginalized groups, including transgender persons and religious minorities, remains a critical area of focus.

Sources & Further Reading

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the 'walk of shame' practice by police in Maharashtra:

  • A.It is an officially sanctioned procedure to deter criminals.
  • B.Videos of accused individuals are circulated on official digital handles.
  • C.The practice is aimed at upholding the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
  • D.It is a practice endorsed by the Supreme Court of India.
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement A is incorrect because the article states that Inspector General (law and order) Manoj Kumar Sharma mentioned there have been no instructions to create such videos, implying it is not officially sanctioned. Statement C is incorrect; the practice directly violates the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' by publicly shaming individuals before conviction. Statement D is incorrect; the practice is criticized for undermining due process and the rule of law, which are principles upheld by the Supreme Court. Statement B is correct as the article mentions that Nashik Police have been putting out videos circulated on their official digital handles.

2. Which of the following constitutional principles is most directly challenged by the 'walk of shame' practice of parading accused individuals?

  • A.Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)
  • B.Right to Equality (Article 14)
  • C.Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including dignity (Article 21)
  • D.Right against Exploitation (Article 23)
Show Answer

Answer: C

The 'walk of shame' practice directly infringes upon the dignity of the accused, which is an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Public parading and shaming before conviction can cause immense psychological distress and damage to reputation, violating the inherent dignity of an individual. While Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) are fundamental rights, the core violation in this specific practice is the assault on personal dignity and liberty before due legal process is completed.

3. Consider the following statements regarding the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026:

  • A.It reinforces the principle of self-identification of gender as recognized in the NALSA judgment.
  • B.It mandates a medical board's recommendation for issuing a transgender identity certificate.
  • C.It removes categories like 'trans-man' and 'trans-woman' from the definition of transgender person.
  • D.It explicitly requires surgery for obtaining a revised gender certificate.
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement A is incorrect because the Amendment Act moves away from self-identification towards medical and administrative certification. Statement B is correct as the Act mandates a certificate issued by a district magistrate based on a medical board's recommendation. Statement C is correct; the Act removes these specific categories from the definition. Statement D is correct; the Act explicitly mandates surgery for a revised gender certificate. Therefore, only statement A is incorrect, making B, C, and D correct. The question asks which statement is correct, and B is a correct statement about the Act.

Source Articles

RS

About the Author

Richa Singh

Public Policy Researcher & Current Affairs Writer

Richa Singh writes about Polity & Governance at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.

View all articles →