Introduction
The public display of seized articles before their forensic examination, staged or simulated recoveries for the press, and the media parading of accused persons raise serious concerns of evidentiary reliability, procedural fairness, and constitutional legitimacy. Such practices may not automatically render every piece of evidence inadmissible; however, they can materially weaken the prosecution case by compromising the integrity of the investigation, contaminating identification evidence, disrupting the evidentiary chain, and prejudicing the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), investigative procedures are increasingly structured around transparency, documentation, and verifiable handling of evidence. Section 105 BNSS, in particular, mandates audio-video recording of the process of search and seizure, including preparation and signing of the seizure list, and requires the recording to be forwarded without delay to the competent magistrate.
Unsealed Seizures and Chain of Custody: The Reliability of Recovery Evidence
Section 23(2) of the BSA, corresponding substantially to the former Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, preserves a limited discovery exception to the general prohibition against proving confessions made to police officers or while in police custody. Only that portion of the information which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is capable of being proved.
The evidentiary value of such a recovery therefore depends not merely upon the fact that an article was allegedly recovered, but upon the prosecution being able to establish where, when, how, and from whom the article was recovered, how it was documented, how it was sealed and preserved, and whether the article subsequently examined is the very same article that was recovered.
Risks of Premature Public Display
Premature public display of a weapon or other seized article creates obvious forensic and evidentiary risks. Handling by persons not involved in the forensic process may expose the article to contamination, transfer of biological material, loss of latent fingerprints, disturbance of trace evidence, or alteration of its original condition. More fundamentally, unexplained departures from established seizure, sealing, storage, and transmission protocols may provide the defence with legitimate grounds to challenge the continuity and authenticity of the evidence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that deficiencies in the handling and preservation of recovered articles materially affect the credibility of the prosecution case. In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1995 Supp (3) SCC 217), irregularities concerning the sealing and custody of a recovered weapon were treated as serious circumstances impairing the reliability of the recovery.
Likewise, Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44 underscores the imperative of proper packaging and preservation where subsequent forensic examination is relied upon. The foundational principle emerging from these authorities is that the prosecution must satisfactorily account for the unbroken evidentiary journey of a seized exhibit—from its recovery at the scene, through safe custody and forensic analysis, to its ultimate production before the court.
Accordingly, a media briefing involving an unsealed article is not merely a public-relations issue. Where it results in unexplained handling, breaks in custody, contamination, or inability to establish continuity, it may substantially diminish the evidentiary weight of the recovery.
Section 105 BNSS: Mandatory Audio-Video Documentation of Search and Seizure
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), fundamentally transforms search and seizure procedures by elevating electronic documentation from an investigative best practice into an express statutory mandate.
Under Section 105 of the BNSS, the entire process of conducting a search of any place or taking possession of any property, article, or thing—including the preparation of the seizure list and its signing by independent witnesses—shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably by mobile phone. The statute further obligates the investigating officer to forward such electronic recording without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
Significance of Audio-Video Recording
The primary significance of this provision lies in creating an objective, contemporaneous electronic record of the investigative act itself. An unedited recording serves to contemporaneously establish the exact location and physical context of the search, the active presence and voluntary signatures of independent witnesses as required under Section 103 of the BNSS, the specific articles recovered, the immediate manner of their handling and packaging, and the unbroken chronology of the recovery process. When duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), this electronic record provides vital corroboration for the prosecution.
Effect of Non-Compliance With Section 105 BNSS
The legal consequence of failing to comply with this mandatory recording requirement, however, does not create an inflexible rule of automatic exclusion. Non-compliance does not automatically render the entire recovery legally void or wholly inadmissible per se.
Instead, the omission directly impacts the credibility, reliability, and evidentiary weight of the recovery. In the absence of an audio-video recording, the prosecution bears a heavier burden to explain the omission—such as genuine technical failure, battery depletion, or extreme exigent circumstances—and must substantiate the search through cogent oral testimony and independent witness corroboration. Where the omission remains unexplained and is compounded by other procedural lapses, such as premature unsealed public displays, the court may draw an adverse inference against the authenticity and bona fides of the seizure.
Section 106 BNSS and the Documentation of Seized Property
Section 106 BNSS deals with the power of a police officer to seize certain property. It should therefore not be represented as itself imposing a universal statutory requirement that every seized article must be sealed on the spot or that independent local witnesses must sign every seizure. The statutory provisions governing searches, seizure documentation, witnesses, and custody must be read together with the applicable case law and procedural requirements.
Safeguards for Seized Material
Nevertheless, from an evidentiary perspective, immediate identification, proper packaging and sealing where appropriate, documented custody, secure storage, and controlled transmission for forensic examination remain fundamental safeguards.
Thus, the stronger legal proposition is not that “Section 106 BNSS requires sealing on the spot”, but that failure to maintain reliable safeguards for the identity and integrity of seized material may provide grounds to challenge the prosecution’s recovery and chain of custody.
Media Exposure and Contamination of Test Identification Proceedings
Section 54 BNSS provides the statutory framework for the identification of a person arrested where identification by another person is considered necessary for the investigation. The competent court may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the arrested person to submit to identification in the manner directed by the court.
A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is primarily an investigative and corroborative procedure designed to test whether a witness who claims to have seen an offender can identify that person independently. Its value depends substantially upon preventing unnecessary prior exposure of the suspect to the identifying witness.
Effect of Media Parading on Test Identification Parade
Consequently, media parading of an accused, publication of photographs, televised exposure, or other forms of pre-TIP identification can seriously compromise the evidentiary value of the subsequent identification process. If a witness has already seen the accused through newspapers, television, social media, or other channels, it becomes difficult to establish that the later identification rests solely upon the witness’s memory of the occurrence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prior exposure of an accused to identifying witnesses critically impairs the evidentiary value of a subsequent Test Identification Parade (TIP). In Lal Singh v. State of U.P. (2003) 12 SCC 554, the Court reaffirmed that where suspects are exposed to witnesses prior to an identification proceeding, the integrity of the parade is severely compromised. Building on this settled jurisprudence, constitutional courts consistently hold that visual exposure—whether through physical viewing, circulating unmasked photographs, print media, or television broadcasts—destroys the objective foundation of a TIP, rendering subsequent dock identification suspect and devoid of independent corroborative weight.
The Practical Lesson
The practical lesson is therefore straightforward:
The accused should not be unnecessarily exposed to potential identifying witnesses before a properly conducted identification proceeding.
Media publicity can destroy precisely the investigative safeguard that a TIP is intended to provide.
Constitutional Dimensions: Article 21, Dignity and Fair Trial
The constitutional objection to media parading is broader than the question of evidentiary admissibility.
An accused person does not become a convicted person merely because an arrest has been made or an investigating agency announces an alleged recovery. The determination of guilt belongs to the judicial process. Publicly presenting an accused alongside seized weapons, alleged contraband, documents, or other incriminating articles may create a powerful visual narrative of guilt before the evidence has been tested in court.
Such practices raise concerns under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty and has been judicially interpreted to encompass dignity and fair procedural safeguards. The constitutional protection available to a person in custody does not disappear merely because that person has been accused of an offence.
The foundational principles laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 reinforce that an individual in state custody retains their fundamental right to human dignity and protection against arbitrary or degrading treatment under Article 21. This constitutional safeguard is directly infringed when investigative agencies subject an accused to pre-trial media parading, effectively transforming an untested accusation into a public spectacle of guilt.
The stronger formulation, therefore, is not that every press briefing concerning an accused is per se unconstitutional. Rather, the manner, purpose, content, and consequences of such publicity must be assessed against the accused’s dignity, privacy, presumption of innocence, and right to a fair trial.
The Evidentiary Consequences of Investigative Publicity
The legal consequences of media parading and premature disclosure may operate at several distinct levels:
- Contamination of physical evidence — unnecessary handling may compromise biological, trace, fingerprint, or other forensic material.
- Breaks in chain of custody — unexplained handling or changes in packaging, seals, or possession may create doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the exhibit.
- Reduced credibility of recovery evidence — procedural irregularities may provide grounds for challenging whether the alleged recovery occurred in the manner asserted by the prosecution.
- Contamination of identification evidence — prior exposure of an accused to witnesses may undermine the independence and reliability of a subsequent TIP.
- Prejudice to a fair trial — extensive publicity portraying an accused as guilty may create an environment inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and judicial determination based upon admissible evidence.
- Administrative and disciplinary consequences — depending upon the applicable service rules, departmental instructions, court directions, and circumstances of the case, serious procedural violations may also invite administrative scrutiny.
Importantly, none of these consequences should be stated as an automatic rule that every procedural violation destroys the prosecution case. Criminal courts generally examine the nature of the irregularity, its impact upon reliability, the surrounding circumstances, and whether the prosecution can otherwise establish the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Comparative Overview
| Investigative Stage | Legal Safeguard | Problematic Practice | Potential Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery / seizure | Proper documentation, preservation and demonstrable continuity of custody; discovery governed by Section 23(2) BSA | Unsealed articles displayed publicly; unexplained handling or delayed documentation | Challenge to authenticity, continuity and credibility of recovery |
| Search and seizure | Section 105 BNSS requires audio-video recording of the search/seizure process and forwarding of the recording to the competent magistrate. | Search or seizure conducted without the required recording, absent adequate explanation | Procedural challenge and possible adverse impact on evidentiary weight |
| Identification | Section 54 BNSS provides the statutory framework for identification of an arrested person. | The accused was exposed to identifying witnesses or widely circulated through media before TIP. | TIP and subsequent identification may be substantially weakened. |
| Custody and publicity | Article 21: protections of dignity and fair procedure | Public parading, humiliating presentation, or portrayal of the accused as guilty before trial | Constitutional challenge and possible prejudice to fair-trial rights |
| Forensic examination | Controlled handling, preservation, documentation and continuity of exhibits | Weapons or other exhibits handled for press photography before forensic examination | Contamination risk and challenge to forensic reliability |
Legal Consequences
Media parading of accused persons carries severe legal ramifications for investigating authorities and fundamentally compromises the criminal trial process. It violates binding judicial directives and the dignity protected under Article 21, exposing the police officials involved to contempt of court proceedings, departmental disciplinary action, administrative enquiries by Police Complaints Authorities and Human Rights Commissions, and constitutional tort liability for monetary compensation. Simultaneously, premature public exposure destroys the evidentiary integrity of a Test Identification Parade, renders subsequent dock identifications unreliable, and arms the defence with strong grounds to allege institutional bias, pre-trial prejudice, and denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Conclusion: From Publicity to Evidentiary Accountability
Media parading of accused persons and premature public display of seized articles may create an impression of investigative success, but investigative publicity cannot substitute for evidentiary integrity.
The more defensible legal position is that:
- Section 23(2) BSA permits only the limited discovery-related portion of information supplied by an accused in police custody to be proved, making the integrity and reliability of the resulting recovery critically important.
- Section 105 BNSS establishes a clear statutory requirement for audio-video recording of search and seizure proceedings and their prompt transmission to the competent magistrate.
- Section 54 BNSS provides the statutory mechanism for identification of an arrested person, while prior exposure of the accused to identifying witnesses may seriously undermine the value of a subsequent TIP.
- Article 21 requires investigative and custodial practices to remain consistent with human dignity and fair procedure; public presentation of an accused as though guilt has already been established raises serious constitutional concerns.
Ultimately, the credibility of a criminal investigation is measured not by the drama of its press conference but by the integrity of its evidence. Proper documentation, controlled handling of exhibits, preservation of the chain of custody, lawful identification procedures, and restraint in pre-trial publicity are therefore essential to ensuring that an investigation produces evidence capable of surviving rigorous judicial scrutiny.
The objective of criminal investigation should not be to demonstrate guilt to the camera but to prove guilt through legally reliable evidence before the court.
