Holding

The Court held that the escort police handcuffed the petitioners without any justification or written authority, violating their constitutional rights, and ordered action against the erring officials.

Summary

The petitioners, social workers who staged a peaceful dharna for school teachers, were arrested, convicted under Section 186 IPC and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. After serving the sentence they were detained further and alleged that police handcuffed and paraded them in public without any written authority, violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The State defended the handcuffing by invoking Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation 465(1), which permits handcuffing if the escort officer deems it necessary. The Supreme Court held that the escort party had no written instructions from the magistrate or jail superintendent and that handcuffing without justification breached constitutional dignity. It directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to take action against the erring officials and to inquire into the incident, while dismissing the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners were illegally detained after the expiry of their sentence without a valid order of remand.
Whether the handcuffing and public parading of the petitioners constituted torture or degrading treatment violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the police action was justified under Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation 465(1) and whether written authority was required.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 19, s. 21, s. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 186, s. 34, s. 341, s. 353, s. 447
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 465(1)

Subjects

handcuffingpolice escortconstitutional rightsArticle 21illegal detentionMadhya Pradesh Police Regulationjudicial custodyhuman dignitycompensation

Judgment

SUNIL GUPTA AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

MAY 2, 1990

rs. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA B
REDDY, JJ.]

"" Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation: Chapter VII Part Ill Rule
465-Prisoners-handcuffs-Use of-Directions by Court-Person
remanded-by judicial order-Escort party to obtain orders of Court.

'
~.
. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Handcuffitig and parad- c
ing of offenders; escort party to record and intimate reasons for impos-
ing fetters-Obtain Court Orders.

The petitioners are social workers and Members of Kisan Adivasi
Sangathan, Kesala. They, alongwith a large number of tribal people, D
had staged peaceful 'dharnas' in front of the office of Block Education
Officer demanding appointment of regular teachers in the school
located in the tribal hamlets. The local police initiated criminal proceed-
ings against them for offences punishable under section 186 IPC on the
allegations that they had obstrncted public servants in discharge of

r their public functions. The Magistrate convicted petitioners l to 3 and
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
E

month. The petitioners l and 2 though having served their one month
imprisonment from 22.4.1989 to 21.5.1989 were not released from jail
but continued to be detained on the allegation that they were wanted in
two more cases.
F
In the writ petitions filed in this Court the main grievance was
that petitioners l to 3 on being arrested were subjected to torture and
treated in a degrading and inhuman manner by handcuffing and parad-
ing them through the public thoroughfare during transit to the Court.
in utter disregard to the judicial mandates of this Court. On these
allegations the petitioners contended that they were entitled to G
compensation.

The respondents have not denied the allegation of handcuffing,
but have attempted to justify the action of the escort police. In this
connection, the respondents have relied on Paragraph 465(1) of Part III
dealing with escorting of arrested and convicted persons (including H

871
872 SI JPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
,. (
Political Persons) falling under Chapter VII of Madhya Pradesh Police
A \.
J
Regulations. Under this regulation, if the escort-in-charge feels the
necessity of handcuffing persons, he is empowered to do so. -
Disposing of the petitions, this Court,

B HELD: (I) In spite of weighty pronouncement made hy this Court
decrying and severely condemning the conduct of the escort police in
handcuffing the prisoners without any justification, it is very unfortu-
nate that the Courts have to repeat and re-repeat its disapproval of "'
unjustifiable handcuffing. [862G]
.l
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 526;
c Bhim Singh, M.L.A. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1985] 4
S.C.C. 677; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 1SCC248; Sunil
Batra v.Delhi Administration, [1978] 4 SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. !
Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 488, referred to.

D (2) The petitioners are educated persons and selflessly devoting
their service to the public cause. They are not the persons who have got
tendency to escape from the jail custody. In fact, the petitioners 1 and 2
even refused to come out on bail, but chose to continue in prison for a
public cause. The offence for which they were tried and convicted under
section 186 of Indian Penal Code is only a bailable offence. [8848-C] ~

E '
(3) When a person is remanded by a judicial order by a compe-
tent court, that person comes within the judicial custody of the Court.
Therefore, the taking of a person from a prison to the Court or back
from Court to the prison by the escort party is only under the judicial

F
orders of the Court. [8840] _J
(4) Even if extreme circumstances necessitate the. escort party to ;
bind the prisoners in fetters, the escort party should record the reasons
for doing so in writing and intimate the Court so that the Court con-
sidering the circumstances either approves or disapproves the action of
the escort party and issues necessary directions. [884D]
G
(5) Undeniably, the escort party neither got instructions nor
obtained any orders in writing from the Magistrate or the Jail
Superintendent regarding handcuffing of the petitioners. [88ID] "'
(6) Even assuming that the petitioners obstructed public servants
H in <lischarge of their public functions during the 'dharna' or raised any
SUN!L GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 873

slogans inside or outside the Court, that would not be sufficient cause to
handcuff them. Further, there was no reason for handcuffing them A
while taking them to Court from jail on 22.4.1989. [884C-D]

(7) It is most painful to note that the petitioners who staged a
'dharna' for public cause and voluntarily submitted themselves for
arrest and who had no tendency to escape had been subjected to humili· B
ation by being handcuffed which act of the escort party is against all
norms of decency and which is in utter violation of the principle under-
lying Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [884E-F]

(8) The Government of Madhya Pradesh is directed to take ·
appropriate action against the erring escort party for unjustly and un-
reasonably handcuffing petitioners 1 and 2 on 22.4.89, in accordance c
with law. [884H]

(9) It is open to the petitioners to take appropriate action against
the erring officials, in accordance with law, if they are so advised, and
in that case, the Court in which the claim is made can examine the claim D
not being influenced by any observation made in this judgment. [88SC]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos.
277-80 of 1989.
r (Under Article 32ofthe Constitution of India). E

R.B. Mehrotra for the Petitioners.

U.N. Bachhawat, Uma Nath Singh and N.N. Johri for the
~"""-- Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Two important questions arising
for consideration in the above matter are:

1. Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 have been illegally detained G
from 21.5 .1989 to 1.8.1989 without any orderofremand?

2. Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested were sub-
jected to torture and treated in a degrading and inhuman
manner by handcuffing and parading them through the public
c. thorough-fare during transit.to the Court in utter disregard to H

•
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 2 S.C.R.

the judicial mandates declared in a number of decisions of this '\_
A
Court and whether they are entitled for compensation?

The salient and material facts as set out in the Writ Petitions are
as follows:

B The petitioners are social workers and Members of 'Kisan
Adivasi Sangathan', Kesala. The said 'Sangathan' is actively working
against all kinds of exploitation purported against the local tanners
and tribal people in the district of Hoshangabad. In villages of
""'
Morpani and Madikhoh of Hoshangabad District there was only one
school teacher employed in the Morpani school. The teacher was not
~
attending the school for the last one and half years. Inspite of several ~

c complaints lodged against the teacher, the authorities did not pay any
attention in this regard. Therefore on 27/28.7.1988, the petitioners 1 to
3 along with a large number of tribal women and children staged a ...,.
peaceful 'dharna' in front of the office of Block Education Officer, '
Kesala demanding appointment of two regular teachers in the schools
D located in tribal hamlets. The Assistant District Inspector of Schools
gave an assurance in writing stating that he would make enquiries and
initiate action in this regard. But to the petitioners' dismay, the local
police initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3 and
one old Adivasi widow aged about 65 years who was not paid her
wages by the said teacher, for an offence punishable under Section 186
E IPC on the allegations that the petitioners and the Adivasi woman
have obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions.
"'
In connection with the said criminal proceeding, the petitioners were
arrested, abused, beaten and taken to the Court of !st Class Judicial
Magistrate, Hoshangabad by handcuffing them. It seems that the
petitioners when questioned refused to tender apology or repent for _,l,___
F their conduct but tried to justify their action of having staged the
dharna for a legitimate cause. The Magistrate convicted the petitioners j
1 to 3 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month while acquitting the woman. It is stated that even
after the pronouncement of the judgment, the police once again
abused them, made obscene gestures, beat and took them to th~
G penitentiary handcuffed. The fourth petitioner was arrested in connec-
tion with the peaceful dharna on 25.11.1987 before the office of the
...
Block Education Officer, Kesala and put behind the bars. A warrant
-<;
was said to have been issued against the second petitioner directing
him to appear before the Magistrate on 8.5. 1989 in connection with
some other false case. According to the petitioner, they all were work·
H ing for the welfare of the weaker sections and down-trodden people in

•
SUNIL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 875

a peaceful manner but they were inhumanly treated against all norms
A
of decency by the police in utter disregard of the repeated and consis-
tent mandates of this Court and in utter violation of their fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Peti-
tion Nos. 2821-24 of 1989 in the above writ petitions for impleading the
Superintendent, District Jail and the lst class Magistrate, Hoshangabad
as additional respondents and to treat the additional facts as part of the .,
main writ petitions. The additional facts are as follows;

. The petitioners 1 and 2, namely, Sunil Gupta and Raj Narain
though have served their one month imprisonment from 22.4.1989 to
21.5 .1989 they were not released from the jail but continued to be
detained on the allegation that they were wanted in two more cases, c
namely, in Case No. 470 of 1988 registered under Section 341 read
with Section 34 IPC pending in the ·Court of 1st Class Magistrate,
Hoshangabad and another in a case registered as Criminal Case
No. 569/88 against the two petitioners and others under Section 353,
148 and 149, IPC. The Court proceedings disclosed that the Magistrate D
issued bailable warrants as against the petitioners 1 and 2 and con-
tinued the same by issuing repeated orders of bailable warrants in a
very mechanical and casual manner and without application of mind
from 26.5.1988 to 17.2.1989.

Even after the two petitioners have been sent to jail in pursuance E
of their convictiol) for the offence under Section 186 IPC, a number of
incorrect notings were made in the records of the courts as if both the
petitioners were produced from jail. Even after the expiry of the sen-
tence, the Magistrate had not cared to proceed with the case and to
know as to why petitioners 1 and 2 were languishing in jail. In 'Connec-
tion with the second case, petitioner No. 3, Purushottam Nayak was F
'.... also remanded but later on released on bail on 26.4.1989.

The Counter-affidavit is filed by one R.K. Shivhare, the then
SHO (Police), Itarsi, Hoshangabad District on behalf of.the respon-
dents giving a detailed version about the incident leading to the regist-
ration of various cases ll_n_djustifying the conduct of the police officials G
in handcuffing the petitioners. Alongwith this affidavit, he has filed
Annexures I to VI. He justifies the action of the police stating that the
petitioners on pronouncement of their conviction, got agitated, turned
violent and shouted slogans inside the Court which necessitated the
escort police to handcuff the petitioners. He cites Madhya Pradesh
Police Regulation para No. 465(1) as per whkh if the escort in-charge .H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A feels the necessity of handcuffing persons, he is empowered to do so.
However, he denies allegations of torture, obscene gestures etc.

A copy of the police report dated nil and without disclosing the
author of the same is filed stating that while first and second petitio-
B ners were taken to the prison on their conviction, they turned violent
not only inside the Court but also outside the Court and they were
taken to the prison with the help of other members of the police
force. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Hoshanga-
..,
bad has filed a separate counter-affidavit denying the allegations made
in the writ petition. A rejoinder is filed by the first petitioner reiterat-
ing his earlier stand and annexing certain newspaper clippings and some !_
C other documents inclusive of the copy of the judgment of the Ilnd
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad made in Criminal Appeal
No. 59 of 1989 setting aside the conviction of the petitioners recorded
by the Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Section 186 IPC, and
acquitting the petitioners of the said offence. Head Constable No. 66,
D who was incharge of the escort party has sworn to an affidavit stating
that the petitioners 1 and 2 were taken to the jail on being handed over
by the Court after their conviction and they took them to the prison by
handcuffing them under a bona fide belief that the situation might
become worse. He also cites paragraph 465(1) of the M.P. Police
Regulation in support of his action of putting the petitioners 1 to 3
E under shackles. One other supporting affidavit is also filed by a const-
able of the escort party. It seems that a Sub-Inspector of CID made an
enquiry on a petition regarding the handcuffing of petitioners I and 2
and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police. The relevant
portion of the report reads as follows:

" ..... And the Court called the police guard and as per _J.__
F
Court's direction the three accused were handcuffed and
kept in the lock-up, later on the Court again called all the J
three accused persons to the Court where Purushottam
Nayak was released on bail ......................... .
. . . . . . . . It was found on enquiry that the appellants Sunil
and Ra jnarayan were sentenced to one-month imprison-
G
ment each under Section 186 IPC in the Court of Shri
Chand Soria ·and police guards under the order of the
honourable court handcuffed the appellants in the court
itself and lodged them in jail. The appellants say that they
should not have been handcuffed but the guards had no
H other instruction to the contrary in this regard."
SUNIL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN, J.[ 877

From the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit,
we are able to gather certain facts, they being: A

1. A case in Crime No. 80/87 under Sections 147, 341 was
registered against the petitioners along with some others on
11.12.1987.

2. A case in Crime No. 86/87 under Section 353, 323, 332 read
with Sec. 34 !PC was registered against the petitioners on
25.11.87 by Kesala police.

3. A case in Crime No. 87/87 under Section 341 read with Sec.
34 was registered against the petitioners on 25 .11.1987 itself.
This case .was tried in criminal case No. 470/88 which ended in c
conviction and the petitioners were released on probation on
11.7.1989.

4. A case in Crime No. 52/88 under Section 186 and 447 was
registered on 28.7.1987 by Kesala police which case was tried as D
case No. 58/88 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate !st Class,
Hoshangabad which ultimately ended in conviction. This convic-
tion has been set aside by the appellate Court.

r It is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 were avoiding warrants of ~·
arrest in Crime Nos. 86/87 and 87 /87. It seems that a number of cases E
were registered against the petitioners 1 and 2 and both of them did
not avail bail and they were in prison.

In this connection, we would like to dispose of the Criminal
).,_ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2821-24 of 1989. As we are not satisfied that
the Superintendent of Jail and the Magistrate are necessary parties for p
dis{1osal of these writ petitions, these petitions are dismissed.

According to Mr. R.B. Mehrotra, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one nionth
imposed on petitioners 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 186 IPC
expired on 21.5.1989 and, therefore, their subsequent detention till G
1.8.1989 was unauthorised and illegal. A perusal of the materials
'>--- _ placed on record, it is seen that the case in crime No. 87 /87 was
· registered as criminal case No. 470/88 and it came to an end on 11. 7.89
when the petitioners were released on probation. The case in crime
No. 86/87 was registered as criminal case No. 569/89. There were 8
accused in that case inclusive of these two petitioners who were H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 2 S.C.R.

A arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4. This case went on for several adjourn-
ments on the ground that one or other accused was either not pro-
duced before the Court or not appeared on the hearing date. How-
ever, on 1.8.1989 the first petitioner was released on his personal bond
as per the orders of this Court. On 11.8.1989, the case was adjourned
to 21.8.1989 for further proceedings. Though notes of the case diary,
B copies of which are filed before us, are not very clear as to the reasons
of repeated issue of warrants yet we find that these petitioners were
under remand in both the cases namely criminal case Nos. 470/88 and
569/88. Though the petitioners were released on probation in criminal
case No. 470/88 yet on 11.7.1989 the petitioner No. 1, namely, Sunil
Gupta was in jail in case No. 569/89 till he was released under the
orders of this Court. It is not the case of the petitioners that any
r_
C complaint was made before this Court in the previous occasion when
their release was sought for that they were in prison without orders of
remand or that this Court made any observation about it. Under these
r
circumstances, we do not see any force in the contention that the
petitioners were illegally detained till 1.8.1989. Accordingly, the first
D question is negatived and answered against the petitioners.

Next, we shall examine whether petitioners 1 to 3 were subjected
to all kinds of humilitation by being abused, beaten up and ultimately
handcuffed. At the threshold, it may be noted that the writ petition is
filed by Mr. R.B. Mehrotra, Advocate for the petitioners whose
E registered clerk has filed an affidavit of verification. The following
averments are made in the writ petition:

"That the petitioners were beaten, abused and they were
taken handcuffed to the Court of Shri Chansoria, Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Hosangabad" (vide paragraph 6).
F
"They bad been handcuffed and were beaten by the polic::
on number of earlier occasions for, holding peaceful dharna
and for making representations on behalf of the tribal
people" (vide paragraph 10)

G "That the authorities have caused injuries, physical pain,
mental agony and insult to the petitioners" ( vide paragraph
13)

"That the petitioners have suffered grave mental agony,
insult and physical pain at the hands of the police and the
H !ocal authorities". (vide paragraph 14)
SUNJL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN. J] 879

_;__ The above allegations are stoutly refuted on behalf of the . A
respondents. However, the complaint of handcuffing is not denied and
that action of the escort police is attempted to be justified mainly on
the following grounds:

1. After pronouncement of the judgment in criminal case No.
B
248/88 arising out of crime No. 52/88 registered under sections
186 and 447 IPC, the petitioners 1 to 3 on their conviction got
agitated, turned violent and shouted slogans outside and inside
the Court and in such turbulent circumstances, the escort party
felt that it was necessary to handcuff the petitioners.

2. Paragraph 465(1) of Part Ill dealing with escorting of arrested c
and convicted persons (including political persons) falling
under Chapter VII of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations
captioned 'Protection and Escort' empowers the escort police to
handcuff the arrested or convicted persons if the escort police
feels the necessity.
D
3. It has been reported by the Jail Superintendent that in .~veral
cases the under-trial prisoners have run away from police
custody while being taken from jail to Court or vice-versa.

Before scrutinising the material in regard to the complaint of
E
handcuffing, we shall dispose of the allegations of abuse, obscene
gestures, beating and torture etc. At the cost of repetition, it may be
stated that all those allegations except the handcuffing are denied.
- Sunil Gupta, the first petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit
dated 8th July 1989 in which there is no allegation about the alleged
torture, abuse, obscene gestures etc. In his rejoinder affidavit filed in
F
September 1989 by Sunil Gupta himself while referring to the incident
relating to Criminal Case No. 569/88, he has stated.

"We are doing only peaceful picketing. On this police and
the Gundas of the ruling party came and we were beaten by
the police and Gundas of ruling party and were forcibly
G
removed from the Block Office."

Barring that, there is no allegation of abuse and obscene gestures
etc. In view of the conspicuous omission in both the affidavits filed by
Sunil Gupta, we see no force in the complaint that the police abused,
tortured and made obscene gestures etc.
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R

The only remaining complaint to be considered is in regard to the \
A
handcuffing. We have already mentioned in the preceding part of the .- ~
judgment the reasons given by the respondents in justification of the
conduct of the escort party in putting menacles on the petitioners 1and
2. With regard to the reasons assigned by the police, Sunil Gupta in his
additional affidavit has stated thus:
B
"This act is incorrect, firstly neither myself nor Raj Narain
did shout any slogan in the Court though I was handcuffed
in the Court itself but the handcuffing was not done with
the consent of the Magistrate nor it was done under his
direction. Raj Narain was taken to jail on 21st April, )989
and was brought in the Court on 22nd April W89 under
c handcuffs from the jail itself to Court lock-up and then
taken under handcuffs in the Court itself in the presence of
the Magistrate."

Coming to the Regulation relied upon by the police, we would
D like to reproduce the relevant instructions of the Madhya Pradesh
Police Regulation hereunder for proper understanding the plea of
justification.

'M.P. Police Regulation

E CHAPTER VII

Protection and Escort

Part III-Escorting of the arrested and convicted persons
-
(including political persons) A__
F
465. When to use handcuffs

Handcuffing will be resorted to only when it is neces-
sary. Its use will be regulated by following instructions.

G Instructions regarding use of handcuffs

(1) When a prisoner is to be taken from court to jail or jail
to court in the custody; the Magistrate or the Jail
Superintendent should give instructions ia writing as to
whether the prisoner will be handcuffed or not and the
H escort commander will follow the instructions but when
SUNIL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 881

the instructions are for not to handcuff the prisoner
and thereafter, due to some reasons if the escort A
commander feels that it is necessary to handcuff the
prisoner, he should do so inspite of the instructions to
the conirary.

(2) (1) B

(2)

(3) The escort commander should ask and obtain

-l orders in writing without fail, regarding handcuffing of
prisoners, from the Magistrate or the Jail Superinten-
dent before taking into custody the prisoner for escort-
ing from the court or the jail. Strict action should be
c
... taken against any disobedience of this instruction."

Undeniably, the escort party neither got instructions nor
obtained any orders in writing from the Magistrate or the Jail D
Superintendent regarding handcuffing of petitioners 1 to 3 as found
under the above instructions (1) and (2). The escort commander has
also not noted any reason for handcuffing the petitioners on 22.4.1989,
on the other hand in the letter dated nil annexed to the counter of
r S.H.O., no mention of handcuffing is made at all.
E
Let us examine whether the plea of justification is supported by
the materials placed ::iefore this Court. Nand Lal Sharma (Head Const-

- able No. 66), who presumably headed the escort party has not stated in
his affidavit that he got instructions in writing, either from the Magis-
trate or from the Jail Superintendent to bind the petitioners 1 to 3 in
~J...-
fetters. F
~
Nowhere, in his affidavit he swears that he handcuffed the
petitioners 1 to 3 either under the orders or directions of the Magis-
trate. Even the counter affidavit filed by Shivhare, S.H.O. of !tarsi
Police there is no averment that the Magistrate directed the escort
party to handcuff the petitioners 1and2. For the first time, only in the G
report dated 10.7.1989, the relevant portion of which is extracted
~
above, it is submitted by the Sub-Inspector, CID to the Superinten- ,,
dent of Police, Hosangabad that the handcuffing was under the direc-
tion of the Court.

However, in the copies of the daily diary of the date 22.4.1989, it H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A
is mentioned that the Head Constable Nand Lal Sharma and the const-
ables of his escort party have been ordered to produce the accused to \__
the Court from the jail after handcuffing them and they were further
ordered to take the chains besides handcuffs from the armoury. These
entries are purported to have been made one at 10.05 A.M. and
another at 5 .15 P .M. There is a specific entry in the said daily diary
B that the escort party had produced the three accused before the Court
after handcuffing them. It seems that certain statements were also
recorded from petitioners 1 and 2 on 4.7.1989 and 5.7.1989. One,
Jasbir has filed reply affidavit submitting that the petitioners 1 and 2
were handcuffed 'within the court room without there being any occa-
s10n for the same' and 'the Magistrate never endorsed or directed their
handcuffing'. The petitioners have produced two photographs showing
l_
c that the left hand of one person and the right hand of another person •
are bound in fetters with a leading chain. In one of the photographs,
yet another person standing behind these two persons is also found
handcuffed with a leading chain. A number of persons inclusive some
police officials also found standing nearby indicating that these
D petitioners 1 to 3 have been publically handcuffed. This handcuffing of
petitioners 1 to 3 with the leading chains might not relate to the admit-
ted handcuffing of these petitioners on 22.4.1989 while they were be-
ing taken from the prison to the Court and from the Court to the
prison because the close examinaton of these photographs reveal that
the handcuffing of these three persons should have been on a
E thorough-fare. Though neither the enquiry report dated 10.7.89 of the
Sub-Inspector of CID nor the counter affidavits filed by the SHO, Head
Constable and Constables disclose either about the handcuffing of
these three petitioners earlier to 22.4.1989 or about the handcuffing of
these petitioners while being taken to Court from the jail. We are very
much distressed the way in which the respondents have come forward
-
F to explain their conduct of handcuffing of these three petitioners while
being taken from the Court to the jail but make no whisper about the
handcuffing from jail to Court.

This Court on several occasions has made weighty pronounce-
ments decrying and severely condemning the conduct of the escort
G police in handcuffing the prisoners without any justification. Inspite of
it, it is very unfortunate that the Courts have to repeat and re-repeat
its disapproval of unjustifiable handcuffing. As is pointed out by
Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for himself and Chinnappa Reddy, J. in
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 526, this
kind of complaint cannot be dismissed as a daily sight to be pitied and
H buried but to be examined from fundamental view-point. In the same
SUNIL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PANDIAN, J.[ 883

)
judgment, the following observation is made with regard to hand-
If_ cuffing: A

"Those who are inured to handcuffs and bar fetters on
others may ignore this grievance, but the guarantee of
human dignity, which forms part of our constitutional
culture, and the positive provisions of Articles 14, 19 and B
21 spring into action when we realise that to manacle man is
more than to mortify him; it is to dehumanize him and,
therefore, to violate his very person hood, too often using
the mask of 'dangerousness' and security." ........... .

"Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore,
c
unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary.
-y·
Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict
'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to
Article 21. Thus, we must critically examine the justifica-
. tion offered by the State for this mode of restraint. Surely, D
the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing
and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be
harmonised. To preyent the escape of an under trial is in
public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself, be
r castigated. But to bind a man hand-and-foot, fetter his
limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets E
and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him,
defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our
constitutional culture. Where then do we draw the humane
line and how far do the rules err in print and praxis?"

Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & Kand F
Others, [1985] 4 SCC 677 has expressed his view that police .officers
should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens in the fol-
lowing words:

"Police officers who are the custodians of law and order
should have the greatest respect for the p~rsonal liberty of G
citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such
bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order
should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty
is to protect and not to abduct."

See also Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, [1978] 1 H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 2 S.C.R

A SCC 248; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others, [1978] 4
SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC
488.

Coming to the case on hand, we are satisfied that the petitioners
are educated persons and selflessly devoting their service to the public
B
cause. They are not the persons who have got tendency to escape from
the jail custody. In fact, the petitioners 1 and 2 even refused to come
out on bail, but chose to continue in prison for a public cause. The
offence for which they were tried and convicted under Se~tion 186 of
Indian Penal Code is only a bailable offence. Even assuming that they
objected public servants in discharge of their public functions during
c the 'dhama' or raised any slogan inside or outside the Court, that
would not be sufficient cause to handcuff them. Further, there was no
reason for handcuffing them while taking them to Court from jail on
22.4.89. One should not lose sight of the fact that when a person is
remanded by a judicial order by a competent Court, that person comes
within the judicial custody of the Court. Therefore, the taking of a
D
person from a prison to the Court or back from Court to the prison by
the escort party is only under the judicial orders of the Court. There-
fore, even if extreme circumstances necessitate the escort party to bind
the prisoners in fetters, the escort party should record the reasons for
doing so in writing and intimate the Court so that the Court consider-
ing the circumstances either approve or disapprove the action of the
E
escort party and issue necessary directions. It is most painful to note
that the petitioners 1 and 2 who staged a 'dhama' for public cause and
voluntarily submitted themselves for arrest and who had no tendency
to escape had been subjected to humiliation by being handcuffed
which act of the escort party is against all norms of decency and which is
in utter violation of the principle underlying Article 21 of the Constitu-
F
tion of India. So we strongly condemn this kind of conduct of the
escort party arbitrarily and unreasonably humiliating the citizens of J.'
the country with obvious motive of pleasing 'some-one'.

For the discussion made above, we have no compunction in
arriving at a conclusion that in the present case, the escort party without
G any justification had handcuffed the petitioners on 22.4.1989 on both
occasions i.e. when taking the petitioners 1 and 2 from the prison to
the Court and then from the Court to the prison. Hence, we direct the
Government of Madhya Pradesh to take appropriate action against the
erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing
the petitioners 1 and 2 on 22 .4.89 in accordance with law.
H
•
SUNIL GUPTA v. STATE OF M.P. [PAND!AN, J.] 885

As has been pointed out supra, the copies of the photographs A
produced before this Court clearly reveal I that three persons-evi-
dently the petitioners 1 to 3 have been handcuffed with leading chains.
We are not able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to when, where and
under what circumstance this had happened. Therefore, we further
direct the Government of Madhya Pradesh to initiate an enquiry in this
matter and to take appropriate action against the erring officials. B

Lastly, with regard to the prayer of claim for suitable and
adequate compensation, we observe that it is open to the petitioners to
take appropriate action against the erring officials in accordance with
law, if they are so advised, and in that case, the Court in which the
claim is made can examine the claim not being influenced by any c
observation made in this judgment.

~..,.. · In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of subject to the
observations made above.

R.S.S. Petitions disposed of.

r

- .

•