CURRENT AFFAIRS | 23 JULY 2026
The Gujarat High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the alleged public flogging and parading of handcuffed accused persons by the police — a spectacle that, the court observed, no authority in a constitutional democracy is empowered to stage. The intervention squarely engages Article 21’s guarantee of custodial dignity and the arrest safeguards laid down in DK Basu. For CLAT aspirants, this is a near-perfect legal-reasoning case study: it fuses fundamental rights, criminal procedure, and the rule of law into one story.
The right to live with dignity — including custodial dignity — is read into Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). Arbitrary, degrading police conduct that singles out the accused also offends Article 14‘s guarantee of equality before the law. The governing precedent is DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which laid down eleven binding safeguards for arrest and detention — arrest memos, informing a relative, medical examination, and the right to counsel. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration affirmed that prisoners and the accused retain their fundamental rights, and Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) issued directions for police reform. The High Court’s power to act on its own motion flows from its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Custodial-rights questions are perennial in CLAT because they braid together several testable strands: the expansive reading of Article 21, the difference between “procedure” and “due process”, and the constable-versus-court distinction on who may punish. Legal-reasoning passages love to hand you the principle — “the police have no power to punish; only courts do, after trial” — and then test whether summary flogging fits. Expect GK MCQs pairing DK Basu with its safeguards, and reasoning sets on suo motu jurisdiction. The takeaway phrase to memorise: an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and dignity is not forfeited by arrest.
| Court action | Gujarat HC took suo motu cognisance of alleged flogging + parading of accused |
| Core holding | Police cannot punish; punishment is a judicial function after trial |
| Rights engaged | Article 21 (dignity/life), Article 14 (equality) |
| Key case | DK Basu v. State of WB (1997) — arrest & detention safeguards |
| Police reform case | Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) |
| “Suo motu” | Court acting “on its own motion”, without a petition |
“BASU’S BADGE” — Basu (DK Basu) guards the Accused’s dignity under Article 21; the police wear a BADGE, not a GAVEL — they arrest, courts convict. And remember the rhyme: “Cuffs are for custody, not for cruelty.”
What the court actually said
Acting on its own motion after visuals surfaced of accused persons being flogged and paraded, the Gujarat High Court underscored a foundational principle of the criminal justice system: the police are an investigating and arresting agency, not a punishing one. Guilt is established by courts after a fair trial; until then, an accused is presumed innocent. Public flogging inverts this order — it is punishment without trial, inflicted by an authority that has no power to punish at all. The court framed such conduct as a direct assault on the constitutional promise of dignity.
Article 21 and the idea of custodial dignity
Since Maneka Gandhi (1978), Article 21 has been read expansively: “life” means more than mere animal existence, and “personal liberty” carries with it the right to live with dignity. That dignity does not evaporate the moment a person is arrested. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that custodial violence — beating, humiliation, or degrading display — strikes at the heart of Article 21. Handcuffing itself is permitted only in exceptional, justified circumstances, and parading a person for public spectacle is never justified. This is why the High Court’s response is grounded in the constitutional text rather than mere sympathy.
The DK Basu safeguards
The DK Basu judgment translated Article 21 into concrete, checkable rules. Among them: the arresting officer must wear a clear identification; an arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness and countersigned by the arrestee; a relative or friend must be informed of the arrest and the place of detention; the arrestee has the right to have someone informed and to consult a lawyer; and a medical examination must be conducted at intervals. These requirements were later folded into criminal-procedure law, giving them statutory as well as constitutional force. Violations can attract departmental action and even contempt.
Suo motu jurisdiction and police accountability
The phrase suo motu — “on its own motion” — describes a court initiating proceedings without any petitioner. Constitutional courts use it to address grave rights violations that might otherwise go unchallenged, particularly where victims are vulnerable or fear reprisal. This power, exercised through Article 226 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court), is a hallmark of India’s activist rights jurisprudence. Read alongside Prakash Singh, which sought to insulate the police from political control and improve accountability, the Gujarat case is a reminder that the rule of law binds the enforcer as tightly as the enforced. For the exam, the neat summary is this: the badge does not carry the power of the gavel.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
