Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

Author: TISROTA KAR, BIRLA GLOBAL UNIVERSITY 

Edited By: Pooja, Rayat College Of Law,Railmajra (Affiliated to Panjab University, Chandigarh) 

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE  

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”- Martin Luther King Jr.

In the crucible of the Indian legal system, the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration emerges as a beacon of human dignity. The Supreme Court’s 1980 judgment delves deep into the ethos of justice, challenging the practice of handcuffing under-trial prisoners as a norm. This case analysis explores the Court’s affirmation that the presumption of innocence is not a mere legal technicality but a cornerstone of human rights, reflecting the interconnection of our societal fabric articulated by King. It underscores the Court’s stance that the measure of a nation’s commitment to justice is not found in the treatment of its highest echelons but in its compassion for the lowest among us. 

Keywords (Minimum 5): Handcuffing, Human Rights and Dignity, Under-trial Prisoners, Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Fundamental Rights violation. 

CASE DETAILS 

Judgement Cause Title / Case Name  Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration  
Case Number   
Judgement Date  On 29 April 1980 
Court  Supreme Court of India 
Quorum / Constitution of Bench  Justices V.R. Krishniyer, R.S. Pathak, O.Chinnappa Reddy 
Author / Name of Judges  Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer 
Citation   AIR 1980 SC 1535 
Legal Provisions Involved  Constitution of India, Delhi Prison Act,1894 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT 

We know that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So why should a person who is innocent before the law (until proven guilty) be humiliated in front of the entire society by handcuffing them? In the society we are living in, that person is already guilty the moment they see them in the shackles.  Even if the person is proven innocent they have already been shamed and humiliated when the person has to face the trial with the handcuff on. Society does not wait for the verdict of the case only seeing someone being pulled from the house with shackles on by the police, the image and the goodwill of the person is tarnished. Here we will talk about a case that deals with this issue. Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration AIR, 1980 SC 1535 – A Landmark case that deals with the human dignity of under-trail prisoners and the legality of handcuffing the accused person during the trial. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The Petitioner Prem Shankar Shukla, an under-trial prisoner at Tihar jail, was taken for trial from Tihar jail to Court in handcuffs. In this issue, he wrote a Writ Petition to the Supreme Court protesting against the humiliating and tormenting practice of using handcuffs, though there were legal precedents which were against this practice and simultaneously challenging the legality of the same. The Supreme Court took cognizance of this case, given the significant concerns it presented the ‘presumption of innocence’ and human dignity. He had prayed for the exemption of handcuffs in his petition because he belonged to a “better class prisoner”( a class division created under Punjab Police Rules, 1934). As per his statement in the petition, this class gives him advantages over others as the prisoners were said to be divided as per their caste, education qualifications etc. Despite the court orders given in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, he was handcuffed oftentimes. The petition sent to the High Court was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus.  This complaint threw light on the issues concerning the personal liberty, and dignity of the prisoners which fall under Article14, 19, and 21 and also showed concerns regarding the treatment done in jail. This started a legal battle about whether Handcuffing someone qualifies as cruel, inhuman, or humiliating or not. In short, real conflict arose between Human Rights and Safety Precautions. 

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

  • Whether is it legal to handcuff the under-trial prisoner in the absence of demonstrable risk of escape is against the law? 
  • Whether are there Violation of Fundamental Rights of the under-trail inmates guaranteed under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution regarding the indiscriminate use of handcuffs? 
  • Whether is important to weigh the preservation of individual human rights against the necessity of security measures like handcuffing, how should the court rule? 
  • Whether it is appropriate to divide inmates into “ordinary” and “better” classes under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and does this division hold up to the test of legal equality? 

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS 

  • The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the fundamental rights vested in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the under-trial prisoners are being violated. This is also violative as per “Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948- It says ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment’”3 The Petitioner argued that handcuffing a prisoner who had not been declared guilty amounts to severe humiliation in society and damage to the entire goodwill of a person in society that they had worked for so hard. Therefore, it was prayed before the court that if a person completely cooperates with the court proceedings and refrains from any type of resistance and until a person is proven guilty that person should not be treated as a prisoner.  
  • The bone of contention in this case is whether one should give more focus on an individual’s Human Rights or Security measures of the society. The petitioner argued that the balance between security measures and the protection of individual human rights was centred on the premise that security cannot override constitutional guarantees of human dignity and personal liberty. The petitioner argued that handcuffs are only to restrain those persons who are suspects or are not cooperating in the process. Security is a legitimate concern it must not be pursued at the expense of human rights. Therefore, a person who has not been proven guilty should not be restrained as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental right principle of justice, and the indiscriminate use of handcuffs undermines the principle. 
  • A person is not stripped of their basic rights when arrested. It continues to protect the person even in jail. Therefore, the petitioner highlighted the treatment of under-trial prisoners must be inconsistent with these constitutional protections. 
  • The petitioner also challenged the classification of prisoners into ‘ordinary and better’ classes under the Punjab Police Rules,1934 to be violative of Article 14 and no valid link was found with the objective sought to be achieved by the law. It is also contrary to the Human Dignity and International Human Rights Norms.  

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS 

  • The counsels for Respondent argued the process of handcuffing was done as per the rules laid down in the Police Act. Nothing was done beyond the legal arena and this rule under the Police Act gives the power to the Police to handcuff any per they deem to be a suspect as a security measure.  
  • The Respondent also argued any prisoner might flee at any time if given the opportunity. This will become a threat to the society. Therefore, handcuffing a prisoner or any suspect is necessary as a security measure. No rights are being violated in this context. The respondent argued that the petitioner was taken from prison to the court under the protection of a special wing of the police force.4 So it is rational to use handcuffs for the prisoner. 

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

To properly analyse and understand the case, different provisions of C.R.P.C and the Constitution of India should be read.  

  • Section 49 of C.R.P.C– “The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”
  • Section 50A of C.R.P.C.- This section talks about the rights of an arrestee. The arrestee should be informed of the grounds of arrest.
  • Article 32:- This article deals with “Remedies for enforcement of rights” conferred by Part III.  

“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.  

(2)The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.  

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).  

(4)The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.” 

JUDGEMENT  

Upon understanding the case and reviewing every argument placed, the court held that: 

  • The categorisation of Prisoners based on their caste, and family background is written under Section 11(2) of the Punjab Prisoners (Attendance In Courts) Rules, 19697. This rule is completely violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which stands for Equality before Law. No one has the right to treat a prisoner based on caste or family background.  
  • Handcuffing an innocent person who is not been held guilty by the Court will be subject to a violation of basic human rights but simultaneously court emphasized the security measures too. The police authorities should have a warrant of arrest and also should convey the grounds of arrest to the arrested person.   
  • Handcuffs are to be used by the authorities if it feels like the prisoner poses a demonstrable risk of escape against the law. 

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS 

  • In conclusion, this landmark decision reinforced the importance of human dignity and fundamental rights for prisoners. The ruling of the court that handcuffing under-trial prisoners without a demonstrable risk of escape is against the law is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 brought a significant change in the inhumane treatment of prisoners in jail. Moreover, the rules followed by the Punjab Police that made them classify the prisoners according to caste, and family background were criticised heavily by the court resulting in striking it down on the grounds of discrimination and being against the principle of equality. This case became a noteworthy precedent that highlights the need to balance security measures and the human rights of every individual and also emphasizes the human treatment of prisoners. 
  • In short, the judgement is a reminder that the law must uphold the dignity of all individuals including those who are deprived of their liberty. 

REFERENCES:- 

Important Cases Referred 

Important statute Reference: 

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
  • The Constitution of India,1950 
  • Punjab Police Rules,1934 
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948