Bengal police parade probe: WBHC orders inquiry into humiliating accused march
Synopsis
Both the West Bengal Human Rights Commission and the Calcutta High Court are now scrutinising allegations that police officers in Howrah forced accused persons to march publicly in innerwear with ropes around their waists — a practice rights groups say violates constitutional dignity. With inquiry reports due within weeks, the West Bengal Police faces rare dual institutional accountability.
Key Takeaways
The West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHC) has ordered an inquiry into alleged public humiliation of accused persons by officers of Golabari , Shibpur , and Sankrail police stations.
The complaint was filed on 26 May by Ranjit Sur , joint president of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) .
The WBHC's investigation wing, led by SP Pinaki Ranjan Das , will conduct the probe; the matter is listed for 23 June .
The Calcutta High Court — bench of Justice Jay Sengupta and Justice Smita Das De — separately sought a detailed police report on 5 June , with a deadline of three weeks.
Notices under Regulation 16 have been issued to the Howrah Rural Police District SP and officers-in-charge of the three police stations.
The West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHC) has ordered a formal inquiry into allegations that officers of Golabari, Shibpur, and Sankrail police stations forced accused persons to march through public spaces wearing only innerwear, with ropes tied around their waists. The order came after a complaint filed by Ranjit Sur, joint president of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), and was confirmed by officials on Saturday, 20 June.
The Complaint and Commission's Response
Sur's complaint, submitted on 26 May, cited a newspaper report describing the alleged incidents. After reviewing the petition, the Commission found a prima facie case and admitted it for inquiry. The Commission further noted that a similar complaint had already been entertained on 2 June, and directed that Sur's petition be tagged with that earlier matter to ensure consolidated proceedings.
Investigation Wing Activated
The Commission's investigation wing, headed by Superintendent of Police Pinaki Ranjan Das, has been directed to conduct the inquiry following the same procedure ordered in the earlier case and to submit a preliminary report. The state government has also been directed to extend full assistance to the investigation team.
Notices under Regulation 16 have been issued to Ranjit Sur, the Superintendent of Police of the Howrah Rural Police District, and to the officers-in-charge of Golabari, Shibpur, and Sankrail police stations, all falling under the Howrah Police Commissionerate. Police authorities have been asked to cooperate fully with the Commission's team. The matter is listed before the same Bench on 23 June.
Calcutta High Court Also Seized of the Matter
The Commission's action follows a parallel development at the Calcutta High Court, where on 5 June a division vacation bench comprising Justice Jay Sengupta and Justice Smita Das De sought a detailed report from the West Bengal Police on the same complaints. The court's intervention was triggered after videos and reports of the incidents went viral on social media. The bench gave the state police three weeks to submit its report, with the next hearing scheduled four weeks from that date.
Why This Matters
Parading accused persons in a degrading manner is widely regarded as a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal dignity. Critics argue that such conduct by law enforcement — regardless of the nature of the crime alleged — undermines due process and sets a dangerous precedent. This is not an isolated concern in West Bengal; rights groups have flagged similar incidents in the past, and the simultaneous scrutiny by both the High Court and the Human Rights Commission signals the seriousness with which the judiciary is treating these allegations.
With the WBHC inquiry and the High Court report both due in the coming weeks, the West Bengal Police faces mounting institutional pressure to account for the conduct of officers at these three stations.
Point of View
If substantiated, describe textbook custodial humiliation, a practice the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned. What is missing from public discourse is any statement from the West Bengal government distancing itself from the conduct or announcing its own departmental inquiry. That silence, as much as the incidents themselves, is what rights groups will scrutinise most closely.
NationPress
21 Jun 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the allegations against the West Bengal police officers?
Officers of Golabari, Shibpur, and Sankrail police stations are alleged to have forced accused persons to march through public areas wearing only innerwear, with ropes tied around their waists. The incidents were reported in a newspaper and subsequently went viral on social media.
What action has the West Bengal Human Rights Commission taken?
The WBHC has admitted the complaint filed by APDR joint president Ranjit Sur, tagged it with an earlier similar complaint from 2 June, and directed its investigation wing under SP Pinaki Ranjan Das to conduct a probe and submit a preliminary report. The matter is next listed on 23 June.
What has the Calcutta High Court ordered?
A division vacation bench of Justice Jay Sengupta and Justice Smita Das De sought a detailed report from the West Bengal Police on 5 June, giving the state three weeks to respond. The next hearing is scheduled four weeks from that date.
Who filed the complaint with the WBHC?
Ranjit Sur, joint president of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), filed the complaint on 26 May, citing a newspaper report about the alleged incidents at the three Howrah district police stations.
Why is parading accused persons in this manner considered a rights violation?
Forcing accused individuals to march publicly in degrading conditions is widely regarded as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal dignity. Courts have consistently held that custodial dignity must be preserved regardless of the alleged offence.
