http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: SUNIL GUPTA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1990

BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (2) 871        1990 SCC  (3) 119  JT 1990 (2)   372        1990 SCALE  (1)22

ACT:     Madhya  Pradesh Police Regulation: Chapter VII Part  111 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--Handcuffing and parading  of offenders; escort party to record and  intimate reasons for imposing fetters--Obtain Court Orders.

HEADNOTE:     The petitioners are social workers and Members of  Kisan Adivasi Sangathan, Kerala. They, alongwith a large number of tribal people, 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  ham- lets.  The  local  police  initiated  criminal   proceedings against  them for offences punishable under section 186  IPC on the allegations that they had obstructed public  servants in  discharge  of  their public  functions.  The  Magistrate convicted  petitioners 1 to 3 and sentenced them to  undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petition- ers  1 and 2 though having served their one month  imprison- ment 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.     In  the  writ  petitions filed in this  Court  the  main grievance was that petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested were subjected to torture and treated in a degrading and  inhuman manner  by handcuffing and parading 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 compen- sation.     The respondents have not denied the allegation of  hand- cuffing.  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  escort- ing of arrested and convicted persons (including 872 Political  Persons)  failing  under Chapter  VII  of  Madhya Pradesh  Police Regulations. Under this regulation,  if  the escort-in-charge feels the necessity of handcuffing persons,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

he is empowered to do so. Disposing of the petitions, this Court,     HELD: (1) In spite of weighty pronouncement made by this Court  decrying and severely condemning the conduct  of  the escort  police  m’  handcuffing the  prisoners  without  any justification,  it is very unfortunate that the Courts  have to  repeat  and re-repeat its disapproval  of  unjustifiable handcuffing. ]862G]     Prem  Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration,  [1980]  3 SCC  526;  Bhim Singh, M.L.A.v. State of Jammu &  Kashmir  & Ors., [1985] 4 S.C.C. 677; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of  India, [1978]  1  SCC  248; Sunil Batra  v.  Delhi  Administration, [1978]  4 SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi  Administra- tion, [1980] 3 SCC 488, referred to.     (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 custo- dy.  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. [884B-C]     (3)  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 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. [884D]     (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  inti- mate  the  Court so that the Court considering  the  circum- stances  either  approves or disapproves the action  of  the escort party and issues necessary directions. [884D]      (5)  Undeniably, the escort party neither got  instruc- tions nor obtained any orders in writing from the Magistrate or  the  Jail Superintendent regarding  handcuffing  of  the petitioners. [881D]      (6)  Even  assuming  that  the  petitioners  obstructed public  servants  in  discharge of  their  public  functions during the ’dharna’ or raised any 873 slogans  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 22.4.1989. [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 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 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 unreasonably handcuffing petitioners 1 and 2 on 22.4.89, in accordance 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 not being influenced by any observation made in this judgment. [885C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition  (Criminal)  Nos. 277-80 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). R.B. Mehrotra for the Petitioners.     U.N.  Bachhawat, Uma Nath Singh and N.N. Johri  for  the Respondents. 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  from 21.5. 1989 to 1.8. 1989 without any order  of remand?    2. Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested  were subjected to torture and treated in a degrading and  inhuman manner  by handcuffing and parading them through the  public thorough-fare during transit to the Court in utter disregard to 874 the  judicial mandates declared in a number of decisions  of this Court and whether they are entitled for compensation?     The  salient and material facts as set out in  the  Writ Petitions are as follows:     The petitioners are social workers and Members of  Kisan Adivasi Sangathan’, Kerala. The said ’Sangathan’ is actively working against all kinds of exploitation purported  against the  local  farmers  and tribal people in  the  district  of Hoshangabad. In villages of Morpani and Madikhoh of  Hoshan- gabad 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  com- plaints 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  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  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 1st Class Judicial  Magis- trate,  Hoshangabad by handcuffing them. It seems  that  the petitioners  when  questioned refused to tender  apology  or repent  for their conduct but tried to justify their  action of  having  staged the dharna for a  legitimate  cause.  The Magistrate  convicted the petitioners 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  the penitentiary handcuffed. The fourth  petitioner  was arrested   in  connection  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

were  working  for the welfare of the  weaker  sections  and down-trodden people in 875 a  peaceful manner but they were inhumanly  treated  against all norms of decency by the police in utter disregard of the repeated and consistent mandates of this Court and in  utter violation  of  their  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.  There- after, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.  282 1-24 of 1989 in the above writ petitions  for  im- pleading the Superintendent, District Jail and the 1st class Magistrate,  Hoshangabad  as additional respondents  and  to treat  the additional facts as part of the main  writ  peti- tions. 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, 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 issued bailable warrants as against the petition- ers  1  and  2 and continued 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 of their conviction for the offence under  Section 186  IPC,  a number of incorrect nothings were made  in  the records  of the courts as if both the petitioners were  pro- duced from jail. Even after the expiry of the sentence,  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 connection with the second case, petitioner No. 3,  Puru- shottam  Nayak  was 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 respondents giving a detailed version about the incident leading to the registration of various cases and  justifying the  conduct  of  the police officials  in  handcuffing  the petitioners.  Alongwith this affidavit, he has filed  Annex- ures 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 which if the escort in-charge 876 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  dis- closing  the author of the same is filed stating that  while first  and  second petitioners 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 orison  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 reiterating his earlier  stand  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

annexing  certain newspaper clippings and some  other  docu- ments  inclusive  of the copy of the judgment  of  the  IInd 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 petition- ers  of  the said offence. Head Constable No.  66,  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 under shackles. One other supporting affidavit is also filed by  a  constable of the escort party. It seems that  a  Sub- Inspector of CID made an enquiry on a petition regarding the handcuffing of petitioners 1 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 Court’s direction the three accused were handcuffed and kept in  the  lock-up, later on the Court again  called  all  the three  accused persons to the Court where Purushottam  Nayak was  released  on bail  ..........................   It  was found  on enquiry that the appellants Sunil  and  Rajnarayan were sentenced to one-month imprisonment 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 other instruction to the contrary in  this regard." 877     From the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit, we are able to gather certain facts, they being: 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 IPC was registered against the petitioners on 25.11.87 by Kesala police. 3.  A case in Crime No. 87/87 under Section 34 1  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 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 case No. 58/88 on the file of the Judicial  Magis- trate  1st  Class,  Hoshangabad which  ultimately  ended  in conviction. This conviction has been set aside by the appel- late Court.     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 were registered against the petition- ers  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 disposal 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

of one month imposed on petitioners 1 and 2 for the  offence under Section 186 IPC expired on 21.5. 1989 and,  therefore, their  subsequent detention till 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 878 arrayed  as  accused  Nos. 3 and 4. This case  went  on  for several adjournments on the ground that one or other accused was either not produced before the Court or not appeared  on the hearing date. However, 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, 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 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  circum- stances, we do not see any force in the contention that  the petitioners were illegally detained till 1.8. 1989.  Accord- ingly, the first 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  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). "They  had been handcuffed and were beaten by the police  on number of earlier occasions for holding peaceful dharna  and for  making representations on behalf of the tribal  people" (vide paragraph 10) "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 local authorities". (vide paragraph 14) 879     The  above allegations are stoutly refuted on behalf  of the  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. 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  circum- stances,  the  escort party felt that it  was  necessary  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

handcuff the petitioners. 2.  Paragraph 465(1) of Part III dealing with  escorting  of arrested and convicted persons (including political persons) falling  under Chapter VII of Madhya Pradesh Police  Regula- tions captioned ’Protection and Escort’ empowers the  escort police to handcuff the arrested or convicted persons if  the escort police feels the necessity. 3.  It has been reported by the Jail Superintendent that  in several  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  com- plaint  of 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  allega- tions  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 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 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. 880     The  only  remaining complaint to be  considered  is  in regard to the 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 1 and 2.  With regard to the reasons assigned by the police, Sunil Gupta in his additional affidavit has stated thus: "This  act  is  incorrect, firstly neither  myself  nor  Raj Narain did shout any slogan in the Court though I was  hand- cuffed 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,  1989 and was brought in the Court on 22nd April 1989 under  hand- cuffs  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  like  to reproduce the relevant instructions  of  the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation hereunder for proper under- standing the plea of justification. ’M.P. Police Regulation CHAPTER VII Protection and Escort      Part  III-Escorting of the arrested and convicted  per- sons (including political persons) 465. When to use handcuffs Handcuffing  will be resorted to only when it is  necessary. Its use will be regulated by following instructions. 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 in writing  as  to whether  the  prisoner  will be handcuffed or  not  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

escort commander will follow the instructions but when 881 the  instructions are for not to handcuff the  prisoner  and thereafter,  due  to some reasons if  the  escort  commander feels  that  it is necessary to handcuff  the  prisoner,  he should do so inspite of the instructions to the contrary. (2) (1)  ............... (3)  The  escort commander should ask and obtain  orders  in writing  without fail, regarding handcuffing  of  prisoners, from the Magistrate or the Jail Superintendent before taking into  custody the prisoner for escorting from the  court  or the jail. Strict action should be taken against any  disobe- dience of this instruction."     Undeniably,  the escort party neither  got  instructions nor  obtained any orders in writing from the  Magistrate  or the Jail 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 S.H.O., no mention of handcuffing is made at all.     Let  us  examine whether the plea  of  justification  is supported  by the materials placed before this  Court.  Nand Lal  Sharma (Head Constable No. 66), who  presumably  headed the escort party has not stated in his affidavit that he got instructions in writing, either from the Magistrate or  from the  Jail Superintendent to bind the petitioners 1 to  3  in fetters.     Nowhere,  in his affidavit he swears that he  handcuffed the petitioners 1 to 3 either under the orders or directions of  the  Magistrate.  Even the counter  affidavit  filed  by Shivhare, S.H.O. of Itarsi Police there is no averment  that the  Magistrate  directed the escort party to  handcuff  the petitioners 1 and 2. For the first time, only in the  report dated 10.7.1989, the relevant portion of which is  extracted above,  it  is submitted by the Sub-Inspector,  CID  to  the Superintendent  of Police, Hosangabad that  the  handcuffing was under the direction of the Court. However,  in  the  copies of the daily diary  of  the  ’date 22.4.1989, it 882 is mentioned that the Head Constable Nand Lal Sharma and the constables 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  be- sides handcuffs from the armoury. These entries are purport- ed  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  that the  escort party had produced the three accused before  the Court  after handcuffing them. It seems that certain  state- ments  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 occasion  for the  same’  and ’the Magistrate never endorsed  or  directed their handcuffing’. The petitioners have produced two photo- graphs  showing  that the left hand of one  person  and  the fight  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  petitioners 1 to 3 have been  publically  handcuffed. This  handcuffing  of petitioners 1 to 3  with  the  leading chains might not relate to the admitted handcuffing of these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

petitioners  on 22.4.1989 while they were being  taken  from the  prison  to the Court and from the Court to  the  prison because  the close examination of these  photographs  reveal that the handcuffing of these three persons should have been on a thorough-fare. Though neither the enquiry report  dated 10.7.89 of the Sub-Inspector of CID nor the counter  affida- vits  filed by the SHO, Head Constable and  Constables  dis- close either about the handcuffing of these three  petition- ers  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  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  pro- nouncements decrying and severely condemning the conduct  of the  escort police in handcuffing the prisoners without  any justification.  Inspite of it, it is very  unfortunate  that the  Courts have to repeat and re-repeat to  disapproval  of unjustifiable  handcuffing.  As is pointed  out  by  Krishna lyer,  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 buried but to be examined from funda- mental view-point. In the same 883 judgment,  the following observation is made with regard  to handcuffing: "Those who are inured to handcuffs and bar fetters on others may ignore this grievance, but the guarantee of human digni- ty, which forms part of our constitutional culture, and  the positive  provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 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,  unrea- sonable,  is over-harsh and at the first  flush,  arbitrary. 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.  Sure- ly,  the  competing  claims of securing  the  prisoner  from fleeing  and protecting his personality from barbarity  have to be harmonised. To prevent the escape of an under trial is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by  itself, be  castigated. But to bind a man hand-and-foot, fetter  his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the  streets 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 & K and  Others,  [1985] 4 SCC 677 has expressed his  view  that police  officers  should have greatest regard  for  personal liberty of citizens in the following words: "Police  officers  who are the custodians of law  and  order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of 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]1 884

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

SCC  248;  Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration  and  Others, [1978]  4 SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi  Administra- tion, [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 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. Even  assuming  that they objected public servants  in  dis- charge  of  their public functions during  the  ’dharna’  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 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. Therefore, 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 considering the circumstances either approve or disapprove the action of the escort party and issue necessary directions. It is  most painful  to note that the petitioners 1 and 2 who  staged  a ’dharna’  for public cause and voluntarily  submitted  them- selves 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 Constitution of India. So we strongly  condemn  this kind  of conduct of the escort party arbitrarily and  unrea- sonably humiliating the citizens of 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 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 he Court and then from  the Court to the prison. Hence, we direct the  Govern- ment  of Madhya Pradesh to take appropriate  action  against the erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing he petitioners 1 and 2 on 22.4.89 in  accordance with law. 885     As has been pointed out supra, the copies of the  photo- graphs produced before this Court clearly reveal that  three persons--evidently  the petitioners 1 to 3 have  been  hand- cuffed  with leading chains. We are not able to arrive at  a correct conclusion as to when, where and under what  circum- stance  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.     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  observation made in this judgment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

   In  the result, the writ petitions are disposed of  sub- ject to the observations made above. R.S.S.                                       Petitions  dis- posed of. 886