Author- Asha Kumari Manjhi, Bhadrak Law College, Bhadrak

KEYWORDS

• Handcuffing
• Prisoners’ Rights
• Fundamental Rights
• Article 14
• Article 19

CASE DETAILS :

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT :

This landmark judgment addresses the inhumane practice of handcuffing prisoners without adequate justification, emphasizing the protection of prisoners’ fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The case was initiated through a letter by Mr. Kuldip Nayar, President of Citizens for Democracy, highlighting the plight of TADA detenues in Assam.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case :

Kuldip Nayar wrote a letter to a Supreme Court judge after witnessing seven TADA detenues handcuffed to their hospital beds in Guwahati, Assam. The Court treated this letter as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution.

 Factual Background of the Case :

The detainees were confined in a hospital room, handcuffed to their beds, despite the presence of armed police guards and secured premises. This raised concerns about the violation of their fundamental rights and human dignity.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether the handcuffing and chaining of prisoners in public is inhuman and violates their rights under Articles 14,19, and 21 of the constitution of India.
2. Whether the police and jail authorities prevent the escape of prisoners while also safeguarding their rights?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that –

The appellant claimed that the State owed it to all people, even alleged criminals to treat them with respect and give them humane living conditions. Handcuffing them to bed despite the absence of police security violates their rights. The appellant further asserted that the 7 detenus were handcuffed and on top of that tied with a long rope to contain their movement. There is no material whatsoever on behalf of the State Government to infer that the detenus were likely to jump jail or break out of custody. The petitioner added that the detainees were held in cruel conditions, denied access to basic comforts, and forced to pay for their medications out of their own pockets. They emphasized that these detainees had extremely restricted access to justice, making a PIL the best course of action to bring the issue before the court.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that -.

It was argued that during 1991-94, there were as many as fifty escapes or rescues of terrorists from judicial and police custody from different hospitals and all this happened while the TADA detainees were not in handcuffs. Thus, the same mistake cannot be repeated for the sake of the security of the country. The 7 detenus are hardcore activists of ULFA all of them accused of heinous offences. Handcuffing them is preventing their escape from police, judicial and hospital custody which is very crucial for administering justice. It was also stated that the detenus were not completely tied and handcuffed to their beds and were allowed to go without handcuffs to hospital lavatories outside the ward and routine checkups while under police scrutiny. They were allowed to go for morning and evening walks as per the doctor’s advice. Hence the violation of Article 21 does not come into the picture.  It was further stated by the Home Secretary that all the detenus were provided required medical treatment and had access to the prescribed drugs; hence they were not deprived of basic amenities and were not kept in inhuman conditions.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The judgment held that handcuffing is inhuman, unreasonable, and arbitrary, and therefore repugnant to Article 21.

Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India

The judgment held that the laws declared in Shukla’s case and Batra’s case are a mandate under these articles.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

The court reasoned that reckless handcuffing and chaining in public degrades and puts to shame finer sensibilities and is a slur on Indian Culture. The court also held that undertrials shall be deemed to be in custody, but not undergoing punitive imprisonment. The court emphasized that while the police and jail authorities have a public duty to prevent the escape of prisoners and provide them with safe custody, the rights of prisoners guaranteed under Articles 14,19,21 of the constitution of India cannot be infringed.

The court noted that the reasons for keeping the detenus under fetters were that they were hardcore ULFA activists and earlier during the period 1991-94 as many as 51 detenus escaped from custody which included 13 teterroristsho escaped and/or were rescued from different hospitals – seven of them escaped from Guwahati Medical College Hospital. However, the court held that if the authorities are soft on security, escapes will escalate, but to cry ‘wolf’ as a cover for official violence upon helplesprisonersrs is a cowardly act. The court emphasized that the relevant considerations for putting a prisoner in fetters are the character antecedents and propensities of the prisoner.

GUIDELINES 

1. Handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner, convicted or under trial, while lodged in jail or during transport, without prior permission from the Magistrate. Police and jail authorities must produce the prisoner before the Magistrate to seek permission for handcuffing, providing concrete reasons for such measures. In cases of immediate arrest without a warrant, if the police officer deems handcuffing necessary, it may be done until the individual is presented before the Magistrate, who will then decide on the continuation of such restraints.

OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

i.The judgment reinforced and reiterated the principles laid down in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, emphasizing the illegality of routine handcuffing.

OBITER DICTA 

The Court emphasized that even orders from superior authorities do not justify the violation of constitutional rights, and any non-compliance with these directives would attract contempt proceedings.

 CONCLUSION & COMMENTS:

The court allowed the writ petition in the above terms and directed all ranks of police and prison authorities to meticulously obey the directions issued. Any violation of the directions issued by the court by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under the law.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

• Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration

Important Statutes Referred :

i.The Constitution of India, 1950