9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of handcuffing under-trial prisoners. 2. Discrimination between "better class" and "ordinary" prisoners regarding handcuffing. 3. Procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in handcuffing practices. 4. Compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Constitutionality of Handcuffing Under-Trial Prisoners: The judgment addresses the legality of handcuffing under-trial prisoners, emphasizing that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and unreasonable, and therefore, arbitrary. It is stated that "Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict 'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21." The court examines the justification offered by the State for handcuffing, balancing the need to prevent escape with the need to protect the prisoner's dignity. The judgment holds that handcuffing should not be a routine practice but a measure of last resort when no other practical method of preventing escape is available. 2. Discrimination Between "Better Class" and "Ordinary" Prisoners: The court criticizes the classification of prisoners into "better class" and "ordinary" for the purposes of handcuffing, deeming it arbitrary and irrational. It is noted that "No one shall be fettered in any form based on superior class differentia, as the law treats them equally." The judgment declares that economic and social status cannot be the basis for differentiating prisoners regarding handcuffing, as it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth, political importance, or social status. 3. Procedural Safeguards and Judicial Oversight in Handcuffing Practices: The judgment mandates that handcuffing should only be employed when absolutely necessary, and the reasons for doing so must be recorded contemporaneously by the escorting authority and shown to the presiding judge for approval. It is emphasized that "The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval." This ensures judicial oversight and prevents arbitrary use of handcuffs. 4. Compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution: The judgment extensively discusses the need for compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21, which guarantee equality, freedom of movement, and personal liberty, respectively. It is stated that "Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary." The judgment asserts that any form of restraint must be justified as a reasonable restriction in the given circumstances, and the practice of routine handcuffing violates these constitutional provisions. Separate Judgment by R.S. Pathak, J.: Justice Pathak concurs with the main judgment but emphasizes that the decision to handcuff a prisoner should primarily lie with the authority responsible for the prisoner's custody, subject to supervisory jurisdiction by the court. He notes that "The matter is one where the circumstances may change from one moment to another, and inevitably in some cases it may fall to the decision of the escorting authority midway to decide on imposing a restraint on the prisoner." He suggests that the custodial authority should inform the trial court of the circumstances and justification for handcuffing, allowing the court to enforce control over the practice. Conclusion: The judgment concludes that the petition must be allowed, and the handcuffs on the prisoner dropped. It mandates that "the rule regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision." The court declares certain provisions of the Punjab Police Manual unconstitutional and directs that no prisoner shall be handcuffed routinely or based on class distinctions. The judgment emphasizes the need for humane treatment of prisoners in compliance with constitutional guarantees.
|
