Introduction

• This case deals with the legality of handcuffing the accused person at the time of producing him before the Court.

Facts

• In this case, the petitioner sent a telegram as an under-trial prisoner to the Supreme Court when he was being taken from jail to the magistrate’s court and back.
  • The case revolves around a petitioner's complaint regarding the routine use of handcuffs during his transport between Tihar Jail and Delhi courts for trial.
• The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner, protested the humiliating and torturous practice of being publicly shackled despite previous court orders against it.
  • The petitioner, a "better class" prisoner, argued for exemption from handcuffs based on his social status, family background, and academic qualifications.
• The High Court directed against handcuffing unless warranted by specific circumstances, but HC dismissed the prisoner's petition.
  • It said that ordinary Indian undertrials shall be routinely handcuffed during transit between jail and court and the better class prisoner shall be so confined only if reasonably apprehended to be violent or rescued.
• However, the petitioner was repeatedly handcuffed under police orders, prompting a habeas corpus petition.
• The petitioner's complaint raised constitutional issues concerning personal liberty, dignity, and the treatment of prisoners under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The legal debate delved into the conflict between security concerns and human rights, exploring whether handcuffing constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
• The State argued for the legality of handcuffing under relevant laws and regulations, citing security risks posed by the petitioner.

Issue Involved

• Whether the concept of handcuffing is constitutional or not?

Observations

• The Court observed that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, 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.
• The SC further said that Insurance against escape does not compulsorily require hand cuffing.
  • It highlighted that there are other measures whereby an escort can keep safe custody of a detenu without the indignity and cruelty implicit in handcuffs or other iron contraptions.
• SC said that handcuffing individuals without compelling reasons is sadistic and violates constitutional principles.
  • Such acts defy Article 14 by arbitrarily demeaning individuals.
• The Court laid that Handcuffs should not be used routinely; prisoners, regardless of economic or social status, deserve equal treatment.
  • Differentiating based on class for handcuffing is irrational and must be abolished to uphold equality under the law.

Conclusion

• The court held that handcuffs are violative of the fundamental rights of the prisoner.