Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

T.S.THAKUR, CJ [ORAL) This petition has been filed in Public Interest. It seeks a Mandamus directing the police authorities not to handcuff or put fetters on the under-trials when they are brought to the Courts or are taken out of jail for any other purpose, except with the permission of the concerned Court/Magistrate. It also prays for a direction to the Courts/Magistrates to verify from the under-trials produced before them whether they have been subjected to handcuffs or the like and if so to command the concerned officers to initiate action against those responsible for doing so.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The legal position regarding use of handcuffs on under-trial Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2007. ::-2-::

prisoners stands authoritatively settled by a long-line of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts in the country. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, [1978] 4 SCC, 494 and Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC, 526 have examined at length the question relating to the legality of handcuffing and found that the same in inhumane, unreasonable and harsh. The Apex Court has, in the said decisions, issued several directions to the police authorities as also to the Courts dealing with under-trial prisoners with a view to prevent handcuffing and declared that freedom from handcuff is the rule and handcuffing an exception. In Prem Shankar Shukla's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.T.Administration argued that even in U.T., Chandigarh handcuffs were not used by the police authorities for taking the under-trial prisoners to the Court and back to the jail. He submitted that the writ petition does not accuse the U.T. Administration of having violated the directions contained in the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As noticed earlier, the legal position regarding the use of handcuffs on under-trial prisoners is fairly well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the decisions, referred to earlier, clearly ruled that handcuffs can not be used except in cases where the Magistrate is approached and permission granted to the police authorities to do so. The law, therefore, stands fairly well settled. The problem, Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2007. ::-9-::
however, arises when the legal pronouncements are ignored and handcuffs used by the police authorities on account of their insensitivity to the human rights of those facing trials. The case at hand in which a juvenile was chained to the bed in a hospital clearly shows that even when the directions of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court forbid use of the handcuffs or fetters, the police authorities at times ignore the said directions and indulge in abuse of their authority. It is true that the authorities have initiated an inquiry against those responsible for the said abuse but we are surprised that the authorities have remained content with only punishing the Constables, who were responsible for handcuffing the under-trial. There is no explanation, much less a reasonable one, forthcoming from the State of Punjab as to why no action was taken against the higher officers in the police department. If chaining of the juvenile prisoner to the hospital bed was in violation of his human rights, the Constables alone were not responsible for the same. Even those supposed to supervise the discharge of functions by the Constables concerned, were responsible who could not claim any immunity from action in case their subordinates remain ignorant or insensitive to the legal requirements. There is no gain said that the Courts in the District Judiciary will do well to remain sensitive to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to strictly obey the same by verifying from the under-trials, as and when they are produced before them, whether they have been subjected to handcuffs. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard are not meant to remain confined to pages of the law reports. The Courts below ought Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2007. ::-10-:: to take steps to ensure that the misuse of handcuffs is reduced to the bare minimum, if not totally eliminated.