Beyond 'Singhamgiri': How Indian Cops Are Tracking Crime And Chasing Views

A viral police reel showing motorcyclists being made to perform sit-ups and apologise has put the spotlight on a wider debate, where does police publicity end and public humiliation begin?

The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC), in an August 4 order, pulled up the Pune Police over what it described as a “Singhamgiri culture” of posting reels showing alleged offenders being subjected to public punishment. The commission said the conduct appeared to show police personnel assuming the roles of both investigator and judge.

The intervention comes amid growing scrutiny of police departments using social media to showcase arrests, seizures and enforcement action. While platforms such as Instagram can help police communicate directly with the public, courts and human rights bodies have raised questions over how accused persons are portrayed online.

What happened in Pune?

The MSHRC took suo motu cognisance of a reel that went viral on social media. In the ‘before’ portion, two men are seen riding a Bullet motorcycle with a modified exhaust. In the ‘after’ portion, nearly eight people are shown sitting on their haunches after the exhausts were removed. Police personnel are visible, while a soundtrack from the Singham film plays in the background.

The commission said the incident appeared to have taken place as part of an anti-noise and anti-pollution traffic safety drive.

According to its order, motorcyclists were made to perform sit-ups while holding their ears and were lined up on the road. Their illegal silencers were allegedly removed and crushed under a road roller. The commission noted that the action was carried out without an FIR, trial or court order.

It said the police officer concerned appeared to have first acted as an investigator and then assumed the role of a judge by imposing physical punishment and ordering the destruction of property.

The commission also raised concerns over the alleged identification and sealing of a shop selling motorcycle spare parts, saying this could violate the owner's fundamental right to livelihood.

The MSHRC said police have no legal authority to determine guilt or impose punishment.

Why Did MSHRC Object?

The commission's concern extended beyond the single reel. It said repeated incidents pointed to “failure or negligence” among senior Pune police officers in protecting the human rights of suspects and accused persons.

“In any democratic society… the role of the police is strictly linked to investigation of crimes, maintenance of law and order, and apprehension of suspects,” the commission said.

It warned that “unconstitutional, street-level punishments” could normalise police brutality and create a culture of impunity. It also said such conduct could violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, undermine the presumption of innocence and strip individuals of their dignity.

The intervention came a day after the MSHRC took suo motu cognisance of another video involving three minor murder accused. They were allegedly tied to the bonnet of a police vehicle, paraded and made to kneel and walk.

The commission constituted a fact-finding committee under MSHRC Special Inspector General Datta Karale and sought a report within a week. It also sought action-taken reports from the Maharashtra Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police.

Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar said responsibility would be fixed on officers found to have indulged in such behaviour and that sensitisation programmes would be conducted. The DGP's office said no instructions had been issued to police personnel to create such reels and that the practice was discouraged.

From Enforcement To 'Singhamgiri'

The Pune controversy comes against the backdrop of similar incidents reported in Maharashtra.

In April, The Indian Express reported on a “walk of shame” practice in which alleged offenders were publicly punished and filmed apologising. In some videos, accused persons were made to identify their district and call it a “kaydyacha balekilla” — a fortress of law and order.

The use of cinematic references has added another dimension to such videos. In the Pune reel, the Singham soundtrack accompanies footage of police action. The issue is not whether police should use social media. These platforms can be used to issue public warnings, share safety information and explain legitimate enforcement action.

The concern arises when an accused becomes part of the spectacle — through dramatic editing, film music, public apologies or footage of humiliation.

What Have Courts Said?

The issue has also come under judicial scrutiny. On May 5, the Rajasthan High Court criticised what it described as police “media trials”. The case involved allegations that police had photographed and videographed accused persons in humiliating conditions and circulated the material through official social media channels, as reported by Indian Express.

Justice Farjand Ali said the power to investigate does not include the power to declare guilt. The court held that parading accused persons before the media, filming them in humiliating conditions and holding briefings that insinuate or declare guilt undermine constitutional dignity.

It rejected the argument that such disclosures were necessary to maintain public confidence in the police, saying confidence in the justice system must rest on due process and the rule of law rather than spectacle.

The court also stressed that an accused remains an accused until a competent court establishes guilt after a fair trial. The judgment highlighted another problem, digital content can continue to affect a person's reputation even after an acquittal.

What Did The Rajasthan HC Directed?

The court directed police authorities to follow existing SOPs and prohibited practices including publicly parading or humiliating accused persons and facilitating social-media condemnation.

It also directed that guidelines on the treatment of accused persons be displayed as “Do's and Don'ts” in police stations and on official police and home department websites.

The court took note of an SOP issued by the Rajasthan Police on January 21 requiring arrested persons to be treated humanely and with dignity. The SOP also prohibits sharing their photographs or videos on social media, police platforms or through the press.

The judgment referred to Supreme Court precedents including D K Basu v State of West Bengal, Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, besides the Law Commission's 200th Report on “Trial by Media”.

SC Notice On Police Posts

On August 18, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, states and social media platforms X and Meta on a petition seeking restrictions on police uploading photographs and videos that reveal the identities of accused persons or portray them in a dehumanising manner, as Live Law reported.

The petition seeks directions to remove posts showing accused persons being handcuffed, tied with ropes, beaten, made to kneel, dragged or otherwise subjected to degrading treatment. It also seeks comprehensive guidelines for police use of social media.

The petition follows an earlier plea disposed of by the Supreme Court in March. The court had then noted that directions concerning police media briefings could potentially cover social-media postings as well.

Public Awareness Or Public Humiliation?

The distinction is straightforward, police can investigate and inform the public, but punishment is for the courts to impose.

Social media can make policing more accessible and transparent. But presenting an accused as guilty before trial, or using humiliation as enforcement content, raises questions of dignity, due process and the presumption of innocence.

The Pune case and the Rajasthan judgment point to the same concern. When police publicity turns punishment into spectacle, the pursuit of a tough image can come at the expense of the rule of law.

The debate, therefore, is not about taking police off social media. It is about what they show, how they portray accused persons and whether the pursuit of visibility and virality is allowed to overtake due process.