Full Judgment Text
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.