Trial by media begins at the police station. Discuss with reference to police media briefing protocols.

Trial by media is usually blamed on television studios, but the first prejudicial image — an arrested person handcuffed between constables, sometimes with a placard naming the alleged crime — originates in police custody, and often circulates before the accused is produced before a magistrate. The absence of a binding media-briefing protocol makes the police station the true starting point.

Why the trial begins at the station

• The presumption of innocence, with the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is the cardinal principle of our criminal jurisprudence [1]. A photograph released at arrest inverts it, functioning as informal punishment before verdict.
• Acquittal is not a rare accident: NCRB Crime in India 2023 records 11,84,027 persons acquitted against 11,37,639 convicted in IPC cases, out of about 30 lakh persons arrested [2]. A viral image, unlike a case record, cannot be recalled.
• No statute expressly permits or prohibits release of an accused's photograph. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 regulates collection — iris scans, biological samples, 75-year retention in the NCRB database, destruction on acquittal — yet says nothing on publication [3]. The less harmful act is regulated; the more public one is not.

The protocol vacuum

• The MHA Advisory on Media Policy of Police (1 April 2010) gave States and UTs fifteen points on media briefing, but it is advisory, and police is a State subject [4].
• The Law Commission (1980) asked that reasons be recorded before measurements are ordered; neither the 1920 Act nor the 2022 Act adopted it [3].
• Lawful publicity does exist, but judicially: under BNSS, 2023, s.84, a court may publish a proclamation against an absconder [5] — necessity-tested, unlike a station-level release of someone already in custody.

Publicity is a legitimate investigative tool — wanted notices have traced fugitives and recovered missing children — but it must be reasoned, not reflexive. Framing release norms as rules under the 2022 Act, converting the 2010 advisory into binding standing orders, and recording a written justification before every release would preserve investigative utility while honouring Article 21 dignity and fair-trial guarantees.