Calcutta High Court Flags Public Parading of Accused as Impermissible
The Calcutta High Court, while hearing a petition filed by Trinamool Congress leader Soukat Molla, made an oral observation that the public parading of an accused by law‑enforcement agencies is impermissible and constitutes a violation of human rights. The observation was made during the proceedings on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, when the Bench was considering the maintainability of the relief sought by the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for Molla, submitted that a disturbing practice had developed whereby arrested persons are paraded before the public after their production before a magistrate. He argued that such a practice had become routine and that it undermined the dignity of the individual concerned. Datta further contended that the principal grievance in the petition was the alleged public parading of his client during the course of investigation, and that, apart from seeking the quashing of the proceedings, Molla had challenged the manner in which he was exposed to public view.
The Bench, in response to Datta’s submission, remarked unequivocally that the act of parading an accused in public is impermissible and that it infringes human rights. The Court’s observation was made without qualification, indicating that the Bench viewed the practice as contrary to the protections afforded under the Constitution, particularly the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21.
When questioned about the relief of quashing the proceedings, the Bench expressed reservations, noting that the petitioner was already in judicial custody. The Court asked, “If he is already in custody, what remains? Was he paraded publicly?” Datta affirmed that his client had indeed been subjected to public parading. This exchange highlighted the Court’s focus on whether any effective relief could be granted when the petitioner was no longer at liberty.
The Additional Advocate General, representing the State, opposed the allegation of public parading. He submitted that the accused had been taken to the place of occurrence solely for the purpose of reconstruction or fixation of the scene of crime. He stated that although people had gathered at the location, the police had ensured that no untoward incident occurred. The AAG further noted that the accused was implicated in a gang‑rape case and that the National Investigation Agency was also involved in the investigation.
Datta challenged the State’s position, asking whether the State’s case was that the NIA had carried out the alleged parading, and if so, whether the NIA should be impleaded as a party. The AAG responded that the NIA had initially taken custody of the accused, clarifying that the State had not taken him into custody at the outset.
During the hearing, the Bench also observed that the report placed before it did not disclose the specific penal provisions under which the proceedings were instituted. The Court remarked, “Sections are not stated in the report,” indicating a procedural lacuna that needed to be addressed.
Datta additionally argued that the principal accused named in the First Information Report had not yet been arrested and urged the Court to consider the contents of the FIR while evaluating the petition. The Bench, however, expressed skepticism about the prayer for quashing, stating that the facts of the case were “very ugly” and questioning why the petitioner sought to have the proceedings set aside.
The matter has been adjourned for a later date, allowing the parties to file further submissions and for the Court to consider the maintainability of the relief sought in light of the observations made.
The oral observation of the Calcutta High Court adds to the growing judicial scrutiny of police practices that may affect the fundamental rights of accused persons. By characterising public parading as impermissible and a human rights infringement, the Bench underscores the necessity for law‑enforcement agencies to adhere to procedural safeguards that protect the dignity and liberty of individuals, even during the investigative stage. The remark also signals that any allegation of such treatment will be examined closely for compliance with constitutional guarantees and statutory mandates.