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

PETITIONER: SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO 10 OF 1996INWRIT PETITION (CIV

       Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/01/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 718        JT 1996 (1)   111  1996 SCALE  (1)142

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      These  contempt  proceedings  have  been  initiated  in pursuance of  the order  dated June  4, 1993  passed in Writ Petition No.  239 of  1993, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of  Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The said order dated June 4, 1993 for issuing notices for contempt against the contemners was passed in the following circumstances.      Khedut Mazdoor  Chetna Sangath (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sangath’), is a registered trade union of tribals of Alirajpur Tehsil  in District  Jhabua of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It started functioning in October 1985 and has been working for  the upliftment of the tribals in the region. It is opposed  to the  construction of  Sardar Sarovar  Dam  on river Narmada on the ground that the construction of the Dam would  be  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  tribals residing in  the catchment area of the Dam since their lands would be submerged in water and they would be displaced. The members of  the Sangath  have  been  agitating  against  the construction  of  the  Dam.  In  connection  with  the  said agitation, the  members of  the Sangath were arrested by the police authorities  on  various  dates  in  connection  with criminal cases  registered  against  them  and  after  their arrest, the  arrested persons  were handcuffed  while  being taken from  jail to the court and from court to jail or from jail/court to civil hospital and back to jail/court. On some occasions they  were paraded  while handcuffed  through  the streets of  Alirajpur. In the Writ Petition, mention is made of the  following incidents  of handcuffing  of under  trial prisoners : "17.11.92 & -Khemla Aujanharia was handcuffed and paraded in 19.11.92     Alirajpur. 2.2.93      -Revji  was handcuffed and paraded in Alirajpur. 3.2.93      -Ravi Hemadri,Amit Bhatnagar,Khajan,Tilia,Vesta,

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

             Bava Kaharia, Bamita were handcuffed and taken               from the  police  station  to the hospital and               back, and from court to the police station and              back. 3.2.93      -Ram Singh and Vanjara were handcuffed and taken               from Alirajpur Police Station to Sondwa Police              Station. 5.2.93       -Ram  Singh  and  Vanjara  were  handcuffed and              paraded on the streets of Alirajpur. 7.2.93       -Rahul  Ram and Ashwini Chhatre were handcuffed               and  paraded  on  the streets of Alirajpur and              were then taken taken in a truck to Sondwa. 8.2.93      -All the above, as well as Ruhul Ram and Ashwini               Chhatre  were  handcuffed  and  taken into the               hospital.  Handcuffs  were  removed during the               examination.  They were  handcuffed  again and               taken to court and then to the police station,              then back to court. 8.2.93      -Motla and Punia were taken through Alirajpur in              handcuffs. 24.2.93       -Rahul Banerjee was handcuffed and paraded and              Alirajpur. 25.2.93      -Rahul  Banerjee produced before the Magistrate               in  handcuffs (Noted by JMFC, Alirajpur in his              order)."      The fact  about the handcuffing of these aforementioned persons on  the dates  referred to above was not disputed by the respondents  in the said writ petition. Having regard to the decisions  of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980  (3) SCR  855; Sunil  Gupta &  Ors.  v. State of  Madhy Pradesh  &  Ors.,  1990  (3)  SCC  119,  and Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit, 1973  (2) SCR  495, this  Court was  satisfied that a prima facie  case is made out for taking action for contempt of Court  against persons responsible for the aforementioned acts of  handcuffing of  under trial  prisoners. A direction was, therefore,  given by  order dated June 4, 1993 to issue notice to  the contemners  to show cause why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of this Court.      In response  to the  said notice,  affidavits have been filed by  the aforementioned contemners. Before we deal with the explanation  offered by  the  contemners,  it  would  be necessary to  refer to  the provisions  of Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations which prescribes as follows :      "465. Hand-cuffs  when Used - Hand-cuffs      shall  be   used     only  if  they  are      necessary.      The  following   instructions   regulate      their use  - Instructions  regarding the      use of Hand-cuffs :-      1)   When a  prisoner has to be taken in      custody from  a court to a Jail or vice-      versa,  the   Magistrate  or   the  Jail      Officer  should   give  a  direction  in      writing to  the Commander  of the escort      as to  whether the  prisoner  should  or      should not be hand-cuffed and the escort      Commander  shall  obey  that  direction,      provided that if the direction is not to      hand-cuff the  prisoner and  at any time      thereafter  the   escort  Commander  has      reason to consider it necessary to hand-      cuff the  prisoner, he should do so, not      withstanding such directions.      2)   (i)   x     x     x      x     x

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

         (ii)  x     x     x      x     x      3)   The escort  Commander must, without      fail,  ask  for  and  obtain  orders  in      writing from  the Magistrate or the Jail      Officer in regard to hand-cuffing of the      prisoners  committed   to  his   custody      before taking over the prisoner from the      Court or  Jail.  Any  neglect  of  these      instructions must  be  dealt  with  most      several.           4)   x     x     x     x     x           5)   x     x     x     x     x           6)   x     x     x     x     x      A. List  of prisoners  who must be hand-      cuffed :-      1.    Every  person arrested by a police      officer  or   remanded  to   custody  by      Magistrate  on   a  charge   of   having      committed one  of the following offences      shall be hand-cuffed unless by reason of      age, sex  or infirmity he can easily and      securely  be  kept  in  custody  without      hand-cuff :-      a)   Offences relating to coin, sections      231 to 254 Indian Penal Code.      b)   Murder   and   culpable   homicide,      Sections 302 to 304 Indian Penal Code.      c)   Attempt  to   commit   murder   and      culpable homicide,  Sections 307 and 308      Indian Penal Code.      d)   Being a  Thug, Sections  311 Indian      Penal Code.      e)   Robbery, Section  311 Indian  Penal      Code.      f)   Dacoity, Section  395 Indian  Penal      Code  and   all  sections   relating  to      dacoity.      g)   Any other offence against property,      if  the  offender  has  been  previously      convicted   of   any   offence   against      property or  has been  ordered  to  find      security for good behavior.      h)   Persons  accused   of  an   offence      punishable  under   section  148  Indian      Penal Code." In the  present case,  it is not disputed that provisions of sub-clause (3) Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations were not  complied with  inasmuch as no orders were obtained from the  concerned Magistrate/Jail Officer by the concerned police personnel with regard to handcuffing of the prisoners while taking  them to and from court or Jail. Handcuffing of the under trial prisoners has been sought to be justified on the ground  that (i) the accused persons attempted to resist the arrest  and made  attempts to run away; and (ii) a large number of supporters of the Sangath had reached Alirajpur on knowing about  the arrest  of accused  persons and there was strong possibility  that they  would have  attempted to free the accused  persons from  the police  custody. It  has also been stated  that two cases involving offences under Section 307 IPC had been registered against the accused persons.      In Prem  Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra) this Court  has considered  the  matter  of  handcuffing  of prisoners under  trial as well as convicts in the context of the  provisions  contained  in  Punjab  Police  Rule,  1934, Krishna 1yer  J., speaking  for himself  and Chinnappa Reddy

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

J., has  observed that  "handcuffing is  prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary."      Examining the  justification offered  by the  State for this mode of restraint, the learned Judge has said :      "Surely,   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."      [p. 872]      Insurance  against   escape   does   not      compulsorily require hand-cuffing. There      are other measures whereby an escort can      keep safe  custody of  a detnue  without      the indignity  and cruelty  implicit  in      handcuffs or  other  iron  contraptions.      Indeed,  binding   together  either  the      hands or the feet or both has not merely      a preventive impact, but also a punitive      hurtiunless. Manacles  are mayhem on the      human person  and inflict humiliation on      the    bearer.     The     Encyclopaedia      Britannica, Vol.  II (1973  Edn.) at  53      states  "handcuffs   and   fetters   are      instruments of securing the hands or let      of prisoners under arrest, or as a means      of punishment."  The three components of      irons forced on the human person must be      distinctly understood. Firstly, to hand-      cuff is  to hoop  harshly.  Further,  to      handcuff is  to punish humiliatingly and      to  vulgarise  the  viewers  also.  Iron      straps are  insult and  pain writ large,      animalising  victim  and  keeper.  Since      there  are   other  ways   of   ensuring      security, it  can be laid down as a rule      that handcuffs  or other  fetters  shall      not be  forced on the person of an under      trial prisoner ordinarily."      [pp. 872-73]      "The only  circumstance which  validates      incapacitation  by  iron  -  an  extreme      measure -  is that otherwise there is no      other reasonable  way of  preventing his      escape,  in   the  given  circumstances.      Securing the  prisoner being a necessity      of judicial  trial, the  State must take      steps in this behalf. But even here, the      policeman’s easy assumption or any scary      apprehension or  subjective satisfaction      of likely  escape  if  fetters  are  not      fitted on  the prisoner  is not  enough.      The  heavy   deprivation   of   personal      liberty   must    be   justifiable    as      reasonable    restriction     in     the

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

    circumstances. Ignominy,  inhumanity and      affliction,  implicit   in  chains   and      shackles   are   permissible,   as   not      unreasonable, only  if every  other less      cruel means  is fraught  with  risks  or      beyond availability. So it is that to be      consistent  with   Arts.   14   and   19      handcuffs must  be the  last refuge, not      the  routine  regimen.  If  a  few  more      guards will  suffice, then no handcuffs.      If a close watch by armed policemen will      do, then  no handcuffs.  If  alternative      measures may  be provided,  then no iron      bondage. This is the legal norm.      [p. 874]      "The  conclusion   flowing  from   these      considerations is  that there must first      be well-grounded  basis  for  drawing  a      strong inference  that the  prisoner  is      likely to  jump jail  or  break  out  of      custody or play the vanishing trick. The      belief in  this behalf  must be based on      antecedents which  must be  recorded and      proneness to violence must be authentic.      Vague surmises or general averments that      the under-trial is a crook or desperado,      rowdy  or  maniac,  cannot  suffice.  In      short, save  in rare  cases of  concrete      proof   readily    available   of    the      dangerousness   of   the   prisoner   in      transit- the  onus of  proof of which is      on him who puts the person under irons -      the police  escort  will  be  committing      personal  assault   or  mayhem   if   he      handcuffs or fetters his charge."      [p. 874]      "Merely because  the offence is serious,      the inference  of  escape  oroneness  or      desperate  character  does  not  follow.      Many other  conditions mentioned  in the      Police Manual  are  totally  incongruous      with what  we have stated above and must      fall as  unlawful.  Tangible  testimony,      documentary  or   there,  or   desperate      behavior,  geared  to  making  good  his      escape, alone will be a valid ground for      handcuffing and fettering, and even this      may  be   avoided  by   increasing   the      strength of  the escorts  or taking  the      prisoners in well protected vans."      [p. 875]      "The nature of the accusation is not the      criterion. The  clear and present danger      of escape  breaking out  of  the  police      control is the determinant. And for this      there must  be clear  material, not glib      assumption,  record   of   reasons   and      judicial oversight  and summary  hearing      and direction  by the  court  where  the      victim is produced."      [p. 876] In Sunil  Gupta &  Ors. v.  State of  Madhya Pradesh  & Ors. (supra) this Court, while dealing with Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations, has observed :      "This Court  on  several  occasions  has

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

    made weighty pronouncements decrying and      severely condemning  the conduct  of the      escort   police   in   handcuffing   the      prisoners without  any justification. In      spite of  it, it,  is  very  unfortunate      that the  courts have to prepare and re-      repeat its  disapproval of unjustifiable      handcuffing."       [p. 128]      "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.      [p. 129] That  was   case  where   social  activists   demanding  the appointment of regular teachers in schools located in tribal hamlets had  been arrested  and were  taken to  the Court by handcuffing  them   and  this  Court  expressed  its  strong disapproval of the said action.      The position  in law  with  regard  to  handcuffing  of prisoners - convicted or undertrial - has been reiterated in the recent  decision in  Citizen For  Democracy v.  State if Assam & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 743, wherein it has been hald :      "We declare,  direct and  lay down  as a      rule that  handcuffs  or  other  fetters      shall not  be forced  on  a  prisoner  -      convicted or  undertrial -  while lodged      in a  jail anywhere  in the  country  or      while transporting  or in  transit  from      one jail  to another  or  from  jail  to      court and  back. The police and the jail      authorities, on their own, shall have no      authority to  direct the  handcuffing of      any inmate  of a  jail in the country or      during  transport   from  one   jail  to      another or from jail to court and back.      Where the police or the jail authorities      have well-grounded  basis for  drawing a      strong  inference   that  a   particular      prisoner is likely to jump jail or break      out  of   the  custody   then  the  said      prisoner   be    produced   before   the      Magistrate concerned  and a  prayer  for      permission to  handcuff the  prisoner be      made before the said Magistrate. Save in      rare cases  of concrete  proof regarding      proneness of  the prisoner  to violence,      his tendency  to  escape,  he  being  so      dangerous/desperate and the finding that      no other  practical  way  of  forbidding      escape is  available, the Magistrate may

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

    grant   permission   to   handcuff   the      prisoner.      In all the cases where a person arrested      by  police,   is  produced   before  the      Magistrate and remand - judicial or non-      judicial -  is given  by the  Magistrate      the  person   concerned  shall   not  be      handcuffed unless special orders in that      respect are obtained from the Magistrate      at the time of the grant of the remand.      When the  police  arrests  a  person  in      execution  of   a  warrant   of   arrest      obtained from  a Magistrate,  the person      so  arrested  shall  not  be  handcuffed      unless the  police has  also a   *  from      the Magistrate  for the  handcuffing  of      the person to be so arrested.      Where a person is arrested by the police      without  warrant   the  police   officer      concerned may if he is satisfied, on the      basis of  the guidelines  given by us in      para above,  that  it  is  necessary  to      handcuff such  a person,  he may  do  so      till the  time he is taken to the police      station and  thereafter  his  production      before the  Magistrate. Further  use  of      fetters thereafter can only be under the      orders  of  the  Magistrate  as  already      indicated by us.      We direct  all ranks  of police  and the      prison authorities  to meticulously obey      the  above-mentioned   directions.   Any      violation  of   any  of  the  directions      issued by  us 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 law."      [p. 751] The justification  for handcuffing  that  has  been  offered about the  under  trial  prisoners  trying  to  escape  from custody does  not stand  scrutiny because  the accused  were social activists  who were  agitating for  the protection of the rights  of the  tribals and  at the time of arguments on the bail  application of  the accused  persons, bail was not opposed by  the prosecution  on the ground of seriousness of the charges  against  them  or    the  likelihood  of  their absconding. It  is not disputed that no orders were obtained from the  concerned Magistrate with regard to handcuffing of the prisoners  before taking  them to court from jail and to the jail  from the  court. The handcuffing of the members of the Sangath  who were under trial prisoners, was, therefore, not justified  and was  in clear  disregard of  the law laid down by  this Court  in the decisions referred to above. The question that  arise is  whether the  said  actions  of  the contemners in  handcuffing the prisoners constitute contempt of this  Court. We  will first  take up the case of the five police personnel who are contemners Nos. 1 to 5.      Contemner No.  1, M.P.  Dwivedi, was  Superintendent of Police of  District Jhabwa  at the relevant time. He was not personally  present  in  Alirajpur  when  the  incidents  of handcuffing had  taken place. He is, therefore, not directly involved in  the said  incidents. In the order dated June 4, 1993, it  is stated  that notice was being issued to him for

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

the reason  that, being  over all  incharge  of  the  police administration in the district, he was responsible to ensure strict compliance with the directions given by this Court in the matter of handcuffing of under trial prisoners by police personnel under  his charge  and instead  of  taking  action against the police personnel responsible for such violation, he  appears  to  have  approved  the  said  action.  In  the affidavit filed  by the  contemner in  response to  the said notice, he  has stated  that there  was no  complaint  about handcuffing from  any member  of  the  public  or  from  the affected persons  and he  had not come across even any press report about  handcuffing and that only on February 26, 1993 Dharmendra Choudhary, SDO (Police)had informed him about the handcuffings and thereafter he visited Sondwa Police Station on March  5, 1993  and inquired  into the  incidents and the police  case   diaries  in   respect  of  the  incidents  of handcuffings which  showed  that  the  accused  persons  had attempted to resist the arrest and made attempts to run away and a  large number of supporters of the Sangath had reached Alirajpur on  knowing the  arrest of the accused persons and there  was   a  strong  possibility  that  they  would  have attempted to  free  the  accused  persons  from  the  police custody. The  contemner has  further stated that he called a meeting of all gazetted police officers and station officers on March  23, 1993  and gave strict directions to the effect that handcuffing  was to  be resorted  to only  in rare  and exceptional situations  and they  should try  to get written orders from  concerned Magistrate  in  accordance  with  the provisions of M.P. Police Regulations. He has further stated that he  was not aware of the decision of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla  v. Delhi  Administration (supra),  but  even without knowledge  of the  said decision and on the basis of M.P. Police Regulations, he had indicated to his subordinate officers that  handcuffing was  not to be resorted to except in Paragraph 465 of M.P. Police Regulations under title ‘the list of prisoners who must be handcuffed’.      Contemner No.  3,  S.S.  Ansari,  was  posted  as  Town Inspector at  Police Station Alirajpur at the relevant time. H e  was admittedly  present at  the time  the incidents  of hand-cuffing took  place during  the period from February 2, 1993 to  February  25,  1993.  In  his  affidavit  filed  in response to  the notice,  the contemner  has stated  that he himself did  not participate  in the said incidents and that it was the Investigating Officer who was responsible for the handcuffing of the accused persons. He has sought to justify the handcuffing  on the  basis of  the entries in the police case diary  by the  Investigating Officer  that the  accused persons were likely to escape.      Contemner No.  4, S.D.  Bhargava, was  posted  as  Sub- Inspector of  Police/S.O. at  Police Station  Sondwa, at the relevant time.  In his  affidavit filed  in response  to the notice, the  contemner has  not disputed  the  incidents  of handcuffing during  the period  from  February  2,  1993  to February 25,  1993. He has sought to justify the said action on the basis of Paragraph 465 of M.P. Police Regulations. He has also stated that the said incidents of handcuffings took place due  to error  of judgment and due to ignorance of law laid  by   this  Court  in  Prem  Shankar  Shukla  v.  Delhi Administration (supra).      Contemner No.  5, Natvar  Singh,  was  posted  as  Head Constable at  Police Station Sondwa at the relevant time. He has been  placed under  suspensions in  connection with  the incidents of  handcuffings which  took place  on February 8, 1993. In  his affidavit filed in response to the notice, the contemner has  stated that  he had  no knowledge of law laid

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

down by  this Court with regard to use of handcuffs prior to the institution  of these  proceedings in  this Court and no departmental  circular   had  been   issued  containing  the necessary directions in that regard.      As laid  down by  this  Court  "Contempt  of  court  is disobedience to  the court,  by acting  in opposition to the authority, justice  and  dignity  thereof.  If  signifies  a willful disregard  or disobedience  of the court’s order; it also signifies  such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the  court and  the administration of law into disrepute. [See :  Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit,  (supra) at  p. 499].  Willful  disregard  or disobedience of  the court’s order presupposes and awareness of the order that has been disregarded or disobeyed. In view of the  affidavits filed  by contemners  Nos. 1 to 5 stating that they  were not  aware of law laid down by this Court in Prem Shankar  Shukla v.  Delhi  Administration  (supra)  and Sunil Gupta  v. State  of Madhya  Pradesh & Ors. (supra), we refrain from  taking action  to punish  them for contempt of this Court.      The handcuffing  of the  under trial  prisoners cannot, however,  be   justified  even   under  the   provisions  of Regulation 465  of the  M.P. Police  Regulations inasmuch as the said  regulation requires  an express authorization from the Magistrate/Jail Officer for the purpose of taking him to court from  jail and from jail to court. Admittedly, no such authorisation was obtained in this case. As regards the role and responsibility  of contemners  Nos. 1  and  5  in  these actions involving  handcuffing of  under trial prisoners, it may be  stated that  contemners Nos.  3 to  5 were  directly involved in  the said  incidents of  handcuffing because the handcuffing was  done under  their directions  or  in  their presence. Contenmers  Nos. 1 and 2, even though not directly involved in  the said incidents since they were not present, must be held responsible for having not taken adequate steps to prevent such actions and even after the said actions came to their  knowledge, they  condoned the  same by  not taking stern action  against persons  found  responsible  for  this illegality. We,  therefore, record  out disapproval  of  the conduct of  all the  five contemners  Nos. 1  to 5  in  this regard and  direct that  a note regarding the disapproval of their conduct  by this  Court be placed in the personal file of all of them.      We are  also constrained  to say  that though nearly 15 years have  elapsed since  this Court  gave its  decision in Prem Shankar  Shukla (supra) no steps have been taken by the concerned authorities  in the  State of  Madhya  Pradesh  to amend the  M.P. Police  Regulations so  as to  bring them in accord with  the law  laid down  by this Court in that case. Nor has  any circular been issued laying down the guidelines in the  matter of  handcuffing of  prisoners in the light of the decision  of this  Court in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra). The Chief  Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh is, therefore, directed  to ensure that suitable steps are taken to amend the M.P. Police Regulations in the light of the law laid down  by this  Court in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra) and proper guidelines  are issued for the guidance of the police personnel in  this regard. The Law Department and the Police Department of  the Government  of Madhya  Pradesh shall take steps to  ensure that the law laid down by this Court in the matter of  protection of human rights of citizens as against actions by  the police  is brought  to  the  notice  of  all Superintendents of  Police in  the Districts  soon after the decision is  given, by  issuing necessary  circulars in that regard   and   the   responsibility   is   placed   on   the

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

Superintendent of  Police to ensure compliance with the said circulars by  the subordinate  police  personnel  under  his charge.      Contemner No.  6, Vinod  Kumar, was  posted as  SDM  at Alirajpur at  the relevant  time. It  has  been  alleged  on behalf of  the petitioners  in the  Writ Petition  that  the incident of  handcuffing on  February 18, 1993 took place in his presence.  In his  affidavit filed  in response  to  the notice, the  contemner has,  however, stated  that he was on earned leave from December 31, 1992 to February 17, 1993 and on November 18, 1992 he was on medical leave. In view of the said statement,  no responsibility attacher to the contemner in respect  of the  incident of  handcuffing on November 18, 1992 and notice issued against him is discharged.      Contemner No.  7, B.K.  Nigam, was  posted as  Judicial Magistrate First  Class, Alirajpur, at the relevant time. In the order  dated June  4, 1993  it is  stated that the under trial prisoners were produced before him but he did take any action against handcuffing of those prisoners by the police. In the  said order,  reference has  also been  made  to  the rejoinder affidavit  of Dr.  Amita Baviskar filed on June 1, 1993 wherein  it is  stated that  the contemner was apprised about the decisions of this Court and he is reported to have stated  that   "......the  Supreme  Court  decision  has  no application threaten  that  the  police  has  the  right  to transport  the   accused  as  they  want,  with  or  without handcuffs".  The  contemner  has  filed  two  affidavits  in responses to  the notice.  In the  affidavit dated  July 31, 1993, he  has denied having made the statement as alleged by Dr. Amita  Baviskar in  her affidavit  dated  June  1,  1993 regarding handcuffing  of the  under trial prisoners and has said that  on February  8, 1993,  two complaints  were  made before him  by accused Ravi and Rahul Narsimha Ram about the handcuffing of  prisoners and  that on these applications he had passed  orders on  the same  day for  Incharge of Police Station Alirajpur  to submit  explanation and  that  besides these two  complaints, no complaint whatsoever, orally or in writing, was  made to him regarding handcuffing of the under trial prisoners. In support of his aforesaid submission, the contemner has also filed the affidavits of Shri Betulla Khan and Shri  Girdhari Lal Vini, Advocates who were representing the accused  persons before  him in  those cases and who had appeared  in  his  court  on  February  8,  1993.  In  these affidavits the  deponents have  stated that  no decision  of this Court  was cited  before the  contemner  on  that  date regarding handcuffing  of under trial prisoners and that the contemner did not say that the decision of this Court has no application and  the police  has the  right to transport the accused as  they want,  with or  without handcuffs.  In  the second affidavit  dated September 18, 1993 the contemner has tendered his  unconditional and  unqualified apology for the lapse on  his part  that when under trial prisoners in Crime No. 11/93,  12/93, 17/93  of Police Station Sondwa, who were agitating against  the construction  of Sardar Sarovar, were produced in handcuffs in his Court, immediate action was not taken by  him for the removal of their handcuffs and against the escort  party for  bringing them in Court or taking them away from  Court in  handcuffs. The  contemner has submitted that he  is a  young judicial officer and that the lapse was not intentional.      We have  carefully considered the two affidavits of the contemner as well as the affidavits of Shri Betulla Khan and Shri Girdhari  Lal Vani,  Advocates. We would assume that of February 8,  1993 the  contemner did  not make the statement about the  judgments of  this Court  having  no  application

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

there and  the police  having the  right  to  transport  the accused as  they want,  with or  without handcuffs.  But the contemner, being a judicial officer, is expected to be aware of law  laid down  by this  Court in  Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra) and Sunil Gupta & Ors. v. State of Madhya  Pradesh &  Ors. (supra).  Prem Shankar  Shukla v. Delhi Administration  (supra) was decided in 1980, nearly 13 years earlier.  In his  affidavits also he does not say that he was  not aware  of the  said decisions.  Apart from that, there were  provisions in  Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations prescribing  the conditions in which under trial prisoners  could   be  handcuffed   and  they   contain  the requirement regarding  authorisation for  the  same  by  the Magistrate. It  appears that  the contemner  was  completely insensitive about the serious violations of the human rights of  the  under  trial  prisoners  in  the  matter  of  their handcuffing in  as much  as when the prisoners were produced before him  in Court  in handcuffs,  he  did  not  think  it necessary to take any action for the removal of handcuffs or against the  escort party  for bringing them to the Court in Handcuffs and  taking them  away in  handcuffs  without  his authorisation. This  is a  serious lepse  on the part of the contemner in  the discharge  of his  duties  as  a  judicial officer who  is expected  to ensure  that  the  basic  human rights of  the citizens  are not  violated. Keeping  in view that the  contemner is  a young judicial officer, we refrain from imposing  punishment on  him. We,  however, record  our strong disapproval  of his conduct and direct that a note of this disapproval by this Court shall be kept in the personal file of  the contemner.  We also feel that judicial officers should be  made aware from time to time of the law laid down by this  Court  and  the  High  Court,  more  especially  in connection with  protection of  basic human  rights  of  the people and, for that purpose, short refresher courses may be conducted at regular intervals so that judicial officers are made aware about the developments in the law in the field.      In the  result, the contempt notices issued against the contemners  are   discharged  subject   to  the   directions regarding disapproval of the conduct of contemners Nos. 1 to 5 and  7 and  directions regarding  placing the  note of the said disapproval  in the  personal files of all of them. The contempt   proceedings will stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of  this order  be sent  to the  Chief Secretary to the Government of  Madhya  Pradesh  and  the  Registrar,  Madhya Pradesh High Court.