ONE ALLEGED CRIME, TWO QUESTIONS OF HUMAN DIGNITY: RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUDGE CONDEMNS POLICE PARADE IN KOLKATA’S SARSUNA CASE

October 28, 2026

KOLKATA, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — The controversy surrounding the alleged public humiliation of three men in Kolkata’s Sarsuna locality has raised a fundamental question about the rule of law: can the police uphold justice while employing methods that risk humiliating people who have been arrested but not convicted? Former Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly has criticised the police’s handling of the case, arguing that one alleged violation of human rights cannot be answered by another.

Speaking on Tuesday, Ganguly, who also formerly chaired the West Bengal Human Rights Commission, described the public parading of the arrested men in shorts as a gross violation of human rights. He maintained that although the police were right to arrest those accused of the original incident, arrest does not extinguish an individual’s fundamental rights or authorise the authorities to impose humiliation as a form of punishment.

The case originated on Sunday night in Sarsuna, in south-west Kolkata, when a teenage boy, his father and another young man were allegedly assaulted and forced to walk naked through the neighbourhood. The incident reportedly followed a confrontation after the teenager was found with a girl. According to allegations made by the victims, members of the girl’s family detained and assaulted them before forcing them to strip and walk in public. The precise circumstances and individual responsibility for the alleged acts remain matters for investigation.

The incident came to public attention after footage purportedly showing the men being paraded naked circulated online. The episode triggered outrage and renewed concerns about vigilante behaviour, personal dignity and the use of coercion in disputes involving young people and their families.

The police subsequently arrested suspects in connection with the allegations. On Tuesday, however, three arrested men were themselves taken through the same neighbourhood barefoot, wearing only shorts and with ropes tied around their waists. Police sources described the exercise as a reconstruction of the alleged crime, but the manner in which it was conducted prompted questions about whether a legitimate investigative procedure had crossed the boundary into public humiliation.

Ganguly’s criticism centred on this distinction. Law-enforcement agencies possess the authority to investigate offences, apprehend suspects and gather evidence in accordance with the law. That authority, however, does not confer an unrestricted licence to subject arrested persons to degrading treatment. Even where allegations are grave, the response of the state must remain within legal and constitutional limits.

The controversy therefore presents two separate questions of accountability. The first concerns the allegations that private individuals assaulted and publicly humiliated three people. The second concerns whether the police acted with the restraint and respect for human dignity expected of an institution responsible for enforcing the law. Establishing the facts of one incident cannot automatically settle the legality of the other.

Crime reconstruction can serve a legitimate investigative purpose, but its necessity and manner of execution matter. If suspects are deliberately exposed to public ridicule, the exercise risks being perceived not as evidence-gathering but as punishment before trial. Such practices can also blur the distinction between lawful policing and the retaliatory conduct that the police are expected to prevent.

The presumption of innocence remains central to criminal justice. Arrest is not a declaration of guilt, and public anger cannot substitute for judicial determination. Equally, the alleged victims of the original incident are entitled to protection, a proper investigation and access to justice. Defending the rights of accused persons does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations against them; rather, it reinforces the principle that justice must be administered consistently.

The Sarsuna case has consequently become more than a dispute over a single police operation. It has exposed the tension between public demands for immediate retribution and the obligations of a constitutional state. When the authorities respond to alleged humiliation with conduct that appears similarly humiliating, they risk weakening the very principle that distinguishes the administration of justice from mob retaliation.

The investigation must establish what happened on Sunday, identify those responsible and determine whether the police’s subsequent actions complied with the law. Until those questions are resolved, the essential principle remains clear: allegations must be investigated, wrongdoing must be proved through lawful proceedings, and human dignity cannot be treated as a privilege reserved only for those who have not been accused of a crime.