Supreme Court Petition Challenges Police Practice of Publicly Parading Suspects Before Conviction

Kathmandu. A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the practice of publicly parading individuals arrested during criminal investigations before they are proven guilty by the court, and against the use of pressure to extract statements.

Advocate Kumar Prasad Thapaliya filed the petition as a matter of public interest, naming the Government of Nepal and the Police Headquarters as defendants. The preliminary hearing for the writ is scheduled for Chait 26.

The petition claims that a serious distortion has entered Nepal's current criminal justice system. The petitioner argues that the police's practice of immediately releasing the name, surname, photograph, and video of an accused person, effectively labeling them a 'criminal' in society, is a direct violation of constitutional rights.

The petition asserts that publicly parading suspects immediately upon arrest severely undermines the rights to live with dignity, fair trial, privacy, and freedom from torture, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The petition states, 'Presenting arrested individuals publicly as criminals causes long-term negative impacts on their social reputation, mental state, and family relationships.'

Article 20(5) of the Constitution grants every person the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the petition notes that when police hold press conferences during the investigation phase, it leads to a 'media trial,' destroying an individual's social reputation before a court verdict.

Petitioner Thapaliya claims that such actions also violate international human rights treaties, specifically the ICCPR and CAT. It is reported that the petitioner had previously submitted a request to the Ministry of Home Affairs demanding reforms, but received no response.

Through the writ, he has demanded that the Supreme Court issue a mandamus order to prevent the public display of arrested individuals until they are proven guilty, to prohibit the use of torture during investigations, and to forbid the use of coerced statements as evidence.

Advocate Thapaliya mentioned in the petition that he was forced to approach the court because his previous request to the Ministry of Home Affairs to stop such practices went unheard, and these serious human rights issues were not included in the government's 100-point agenda.