Holding

Handcuffing or fettering of prisoners, including those in hospital custody, is unconstitutional unless authorized by a magistrate on the basis of concrete evidence of a real escape risk.

Summary

A journalist, writing as President of Citizens for Democracy, petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 alleging that seven TADA detainees lodged in Guwahati Medical College Hospital were handcuffed and tied with ropes, violating their constitutional rights. The State of Assam countered, claiming a high risk of escape based on past incidents. The Court held that handcuffing or fettering of prisoners, including those in hospitals, is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21, and may be imposed only with a magistrate’s order based on concrete evidence of escape risk. It declared that police and jail authorities have no inherent power to direct handcuffing and that any breach of these directions will attract contempt of court. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the detainees were ordered to be released from fetters, and binding directions were issued to all police and prison officials. The judgment reaffirmed earlier rulings in Shukla’s and Batra’s cases and emphasized adherence to constitutional safeguards.

Issues considered

Whether handcuffing or fettering of under‑trial prisoners in hospital custody is permissible under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether police or prison authorities can order handcuffing without a magistrate’s authorization.
Whether the State’s justification of escape risk suffices to override constitutional protections.
Whether violation of the Court’s directions on handcuffing attracts contempt of court.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 144, s. Article 19, s. Article 21, s. Article 32
Contempt of Courts Act

Subjects

handcuffingfettersunder‑trial prisonersconstitutional rightsArticle 21police authoritycontempt of courtpublic interest litigationTADA detaineeshospital custody

Judgment

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY A
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

MAY 1, 1995

B
[KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Constitution of lndi~Arts 14, 19, 21 ·and 32--Rights of unde11Tial
prisoners-Safe custody-Use of fetters-Not pennissible-Handcuffs not to
be forced on a prisonei-No authority with police and jail authorities to direct C
handcuffing of any inmate-Magistrate may grant pennission to handcuff
prisonei-:Public Interest Litigation.

Contempt of Courts Act-Handcuffing of unde11Tial priso_ners-Direc-
tions given by this Cour~-Mandate to be followed by police, jail authorities
and by subordinate judiciary-cBinding directions issued. D

A journalist in his capacity as President of 'Citizens for Democracy',
wrote a letter dated 22.12.1994 to the Supreme Court seeking interventions
of the court in case of 7 TADA detenus lodged inside the ward of the
Guwahati Medical College Hospital, handcuffed and tied with a long rope
to contain their movement. The room in which they were locked had bars E
and was locked. This court treated the letter as a petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India and issued notice to the State of Assam. The
State filed counter by way of affidavits citing instances to point out how
TADA detenus escaped from the hospitals when not in handcuff. It was
stated that these seven detenus were hardcore activists of VLFA, which F
was notorious for insurgent and secessionist activities; that these were all
accused of terrorist and disruptive activities, murder, extortion, hoarding
and smuggling of arms and ammunition and other allied offences; that the
detenus were allowed to go without handcuffs to the lavatories in the
hospitals designated for them outside the ward; that they ~re also allowed G
morning and evening walk as per advice of Doctors and the handcuffs were
removed during such time; that while tliey ivere lodged within the ward,
their escape was prevented by one of their hands being ti•d with a long
··• j rope tied to their respective beds and attached to a handcuff which allowed
them free movement including movement of hands and at the same time
prevented the chance of their escape or of their being rescued and that the H
943
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department had issned
a notification dated 30.1.1995 by which the Director, Medical Superinten·
dents etc. of Government Medical Colleges, had been directed to provide
all medical facilities to prisoners/undertrial prisoners who were admitted
to Hospitals on recommendation of attending doctors.

B Allowing the Writ Petition, this court

HELD : 1.1. Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, ar·
bitrary and as such repugnant to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The relevant considerations for putting a prisoner in fetters are the char·
acter, antecedents and propensities of the prisoner. The peculiar and spe·
C cial characteristics of each individual prisoners have to be taken into
consideration. The nature or length of sentence or the number of convic·
tions or the gruesome character of the crime the prisoner is alleged to have
committed are not by themselves relevant considerations. [951-B, 950-D)

D Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980) 3 SCR 855,
relied on.

1.2. The police and the jail authorities are under a public duty to
prevent the escape of prisoners and provide them with safe custody but at
the same time the rights of the prisoners guaranteed to them under Articles
E 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be infracted. The
authorities are justified in taking suitable measures, legally permissible, to
safeguard the custody of the prisoners, but the use of fetters purely at the
whims or subjective discretion of the authorities is not permissible.
[953-C]
F 2. In this case there was no basis whatsoever for drawing an in·
ference that the seven detenus who were lodged inside the ward of a
hospital were likely to escape from custody. The antecedents of the
detenues were not known. There was nothing on the record to show that
they were prone to violence. General averments that the detenus are
hard-core activists of VLF A and that they were accnsed of terrorists and
G disruptive activities, murder, exortio~, holding and smuggling of arms and
ammunition were not sufficient to place them under fetters and ropes while
lodged ia a closed ward of the hospital as patients. Security guards were i •
posted outside the ward. While in jail tlte detenues were not handcuffed,
they cannot be in a worst condition while in hospital under treatment as
H patients. To safeguard any attempt to escape, extra armed guards can be
cmZENS FOR DEMOCRACYv. STATE 945

deployed around the ward of the hospital where the detenus are lodged. A
The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of the patient-prisoners
who are lodged in the hospital is inhuman and in utter violation of the
human rights guaranteed to an individual under the International Law
and the law of the land. The action of the respondents was wholly unjus·
lilied and against law. The detenus • in case they are still in hospital-be
relieved from the fetters and the ropes with immediate effect. B.
(953-G, H, 954-A, BJ

3.1. The law declared by this Court in Shukla's case and Batra's case
is a mandate under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitntion of India and
all concerned are bound to obey the same. The guidelines laid down by this C
court and the directions issued repeatedly regarding handcnffing of under·
trials and convicts are not being followed by the police, jail authorities and
even by the subordinate judiciary. The law laid down by this Court and the
directions issned are binding on all concerned and any violation or cir·
cumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act apart
from other penal consequences under law. (947-E, F] D

Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980) 3 SCR 855 and
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. Etc., [1979) 1 SCR 392, relied on.

3.2. Handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner • E
convicted or under-trial • 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 oi' a jail in the country or
during transport from one jail to another jail or to court and back. [954-D)
F
3.3. Where the police or the jail antborities have )"ell· 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 G
proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence bis tendency to
escape, be. being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other
practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant
permission to handcuff the prisoner. [954-E, Fl

In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 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. (954-G]

3.4. When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of
B arrest obtained from a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be
handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate
for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested. (954-H)

3.5. Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the
police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis r.f the. gnide •
C lines given, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, be may do so
till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his prodnction
before the Magistrate. (955-A]

3.6. All ranks of police and the prison authorities are directed to
D meticulously obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of
the directions issued by the Court 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.
(955-B, CJ
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) NO. 22 of
E
1995.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

P.P. Rao and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner.
F
.
Dipankar Gupta, Solicitor General, Kapil Sibal, Bhola Prasad Singh
and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. "We clearly declare - and it shall be obeyed from
G the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the
escort constable and the jailwarder - 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 we have indi-
cated earlier, will be restraints with irons, to be justified before or after.
· H We mandate the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to
CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACYv. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 947

interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to A
handcuffs or other "irons" treatment and, if he has been, the official
concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this
judgment." Ordained this Court - speaking through V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. -
in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980] 3 SCR 855.

Jn Suni/ Batra Etc. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. Etc., (1979] 1 SCR B
392 this Court pronounced that under-trials shall be deemed to be in
custody, but not undergoing punitive imprisonmenf. Fetters, especially bar
fetters, shall be shunned as violative of human dignity, within and without
prisons. The indiscriminate resort to handcuffs, when accused persons are
taken to and from court and the expedient of forcing irons on prison C
inmates are illegal and shall be stopped forthwith save in small category of
cases where an under-trial has a credible tendency for violence and escape
a humanely graduated degree of "iron" restraint is permissible if - other
disciplinary alternatives are unworkable. The burden of proof of the
ground is on the custodian. And if be fails, he will be liable in law. Reckless
handcuffmg and chaining in public degrades, puts to shame finer sen- D
sibitities and is a slur on our culture.

The law declared by this Court in Shukla's case and Ba/Ta's case is
a mandate under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India and all
concerned are bound to obey the same. We are constrained to say that the E
guidelines laid down by this Court and the directions issued repeatedly
regarding bandcuffmg of under-trials and convicts are not being followed
by the police, jail authoriti~s and even by the subordinate judiciary. We
make it clear that the law laid down by this Court in the above said two
judgments and the directions issued by us are binding on all concerned and
any violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt F
of Court Act apart from other penal consequences under law.

Mr. Kuldip Nayar, an eminent journalist - in his capacity as President
of "Citizens for Democracy'' - wrote a letter dated December 22, 1994 to
one of us wherein be stated as under :
G

' .
'
"A few days ago when I was in Guwahati I went to see a patient
at the Govt. hospital. To my horror, I found 7 TADA detenus put
in one room, handcuffed to their bed. This was despite the fact
that the room in which they were locked had bars and was locked.
Outside a posse of policemen stood with guns on their shoulders. H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A After talking to the detenus I found that they had to pay for the
medicine from their own pocket. I fail to understand how the f
Assam government could do. all this inspite of various court orders.
I drew the attention of the state Chief Minister through a letter
but got no reply. May I approach you to intervene."

B This Court treated the letter as a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India and issued notice to the State of Assam, through its
Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Secretary, Health.

The State of Assam has filed counter by way of affidavit of Mr.
c B.V.P. Rao, Home Secretary of the Government of Assam. The relevant
part of the affidavit is reproduced hereunder :-

"It is necessary to state and bring to the notice of this Hon'ble
Court that during the period 1991-94 there have been as many as
fifty one cases of escape and/or rescue of terrorists from Police
D
and Judicial custody including thirteen terrorists who escaped
and/or were rescued from different hospitals of the State, of them
seven escaped from Guwahati Medical College Hospital where the
above seven detenus are presently lodged .... The following three
instances are significant to point out to the Hon'ble Court how
E TADA detenus escaped from the hospitals when not in handcuff...
(a) On 1.5.91, at about 10.30 hrs. one Mahidbar Dihingia @Bipul
Das, an ULFA activist in custody, escaped from the Hospital of
Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh while he was taken to opera-
tion theatre. (b) On 11/12/93, an ULFA terrorist awaiting trial for
F serious offences including murder, named Jatin Bora@Nripen was
admitted in the Guwahati Medical College Hospital for treatment
as an under trial prisoner. He was kept in the hospital without any
handcuff but under police guard. While so lodged, he killed the
constable guarding him in the hospital and escaped. (c) On 14.3.94,
one Inkong Ao, belonging to the notorious terrorist organisation
G known as NSCN lodged in Guwahati Medical College Hospital,
climbed up a duct approachable from the lavatory and reached
the roof of the hospital building to escape ... It is stated that in all I' ;

the above mentioned three instances, these detenus have escaped
from the hospital when they were not in handcuff. The seven
H detenus in question mentioned in Shri Kuldip Nayar's letter were
'

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACYv. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 949

lodged in Guwahati Medical College hospital. As the Guwahati A
Medical College Hospital is not a part of any jail, a part of the
ward of the said hosp_ital was set apart with a collapsible gate for
their lodgement in the Hospital under Police guard. When inside
the ward they were bound by long ropes tied to one of their hands
with a handcuff, which allowed them to move freely within the B
ward; but preventr-d their escape, which was a very real apprehen~
sion havingregard to the number of TADA detenus escaping from
·Police, Judicial and Hospital custody as mentioned above ... As
stated above these seven detenus are hardcore activists of ULFA,
which is notorious for insurgent and secessionist activities. These
seven detenus are all accused of terrorist and disruptive activities, C
murder, extortion, hoarding and smuggling of arms and ammuni-
tion and other allied offences .... "

Mr. Harish Sonowal, Secretary, Health, Government of Assam has
also filed an affidavit. Paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit are as under :
D
"That the seven detenus are allowed to go without handcuffs to the
lavatories in the hospitals designated for them outside the ward
when, they may be kept under police guard and also during the
routine check up and treatment. They are also allowed morning
and evening walk as per advice of Doctors and the handcuffs are E
removed during such time .... That while they are lodged within the
ward, their escape is prevented by one of their hands being tied
with a long rope tied to their respective bed and attached to a
handcuff which allows them free movement including movement ·
of hands and at the same time prevent the chance of their escape F
or of their being rescued."

The Health Secretary has further stated in his affidavit that the
Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, has issued
a notification dated January 30, 1995 by which the Director, Medical
Superintendents etc. of Government Medical Colleges, have been directed G
to provide all medical facilities to prisoners/undertrial prisoners who are
admitted to Government Medical Hospitals on recommendation of attend-
ing doctors. It is also averred that the notification further provides that the
hospital authorities shall make all the necessary drugs/medicines available
to such prisoners by making local purchases. The Home Secretary in his H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A affidavit dated January 21, 1995 stated "as a matter of' fact all the seven
detenus were provided all required medicines which were available in the
hospital -!rug store."

The undisputed facts are that while lodged inside the ward of the
Guwahati Medical College Hospital the seven detenus were handcuffed
B and on top of that tied with a long rope to contain their movement. There
is no material whatsoever in the two affidavits filed on behalf of the State
Government to draw an inference that the detenus were likely to jump jail
or break out of custody. The reasons for keeping the detenus under fetters
are that they are hardcore ULFA activists and earlier during the period
C 1991-94 as many as 51 detenus escaped from custody which included 13
terrorists who escaped and/or were rescued from different hospitals - seven
of them escaped form Guwahati Medical College Hospital. This Court has
categorically held that the relevant considerations for putting a prisoner in
fetters are the character, antecedents and propensities of the prisoner. The
D peculiar and special characteristics of each individual prisoner have to be
taken into consideration. The nature or length of sentence or the number
of convictions or the ·gruesome character of the crime the prisoner is
alleged to have committed are not by themselves relevant considerations.
Krishna Iyer, J. in Sunil Batra's case observed as under:-

E "The defence of the State is that high-risk prisoners, .even the
under-trials, cannot be allowed to bid for escape, and where
circumstances justified, any result-oriented measure, including fet-
ters is legally permissible ... A synthetic grasp of the claims of
custodial security and prison humanity is essential to solve the
F dilemma posed by the Additional Solicitor General. If we are soft
on security, escapes will escalate : so be stern, 'red in tooth and
claw' is the submission. Security first and security last, is an
argument with a familiar and fearful ring with Dwyerlist memories
and recent happenings. To cry 'wolf' as a cover for official violence
upon helpless prisoners is a cowardly act. Chaining all prisoners,
G amputating many, caging some, can all be fobbed off, if every
undertrial or convict were painted as a potentially dangerous
maniac. Assuming a few are likely to escape, would you shoot a
hundred prisoners or whip everyone every day or fetter all suspects
to prevent one jumping jail? These wild apprehensions have no
H value in our human order, if Articles 14, 19 and 21 are the prime
CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACYv. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 951

actors in the constitutional play. We .iust cannot accede to argu- A
ment intended to stampede courts into vesting unlimited power in
risky hands with no convincing mechanism for prompt, impartial
check. A sober balance, a realistic system, with monitoring of
abuses. and reverence for human rights - that alone will fill the
constitutional bill."
B
This Court in Shukla's case categorically held that handcuffing is
prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, arbitrary and as such repugnant to
- ~ Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To prevent the escape of an
under-trial is, no doubt, in public interest, but "to bind a man hand-and-
foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the street and C
stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity,
vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture."

This Court in Shukla's case speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. laid
down the law as under :
D
"Insurance against e!;cape does not compulsorily require hand-cuff-
ing. There are other measures Whereby an escort can keep safe
custody of a detenu without the indignity and cruelty implicit in
hand-cuffs or other iron contraptions. Indeed, binding together
either the hands or the feet or both has not merely a preventive E
impact, but also a punitive hurtfulness. Manacles are mayhem on
the human person and inflict humiliation on the bearer. The
Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. II (1973 Edn.) at p.53 states "hand-
cuffs and fetters are instruments for securing the hands or feet of
priso:riers under arrest, or as a means of punishment." The three f
components of 'irons' forced on the human person must be dis-
tinctly understood. Firstly, to handcuff 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 keepers. Since there are other ways of ensuring security, it can
be laid down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be G
forced on the person of an undertrial prisoner ordinarily.... We
-#· ! lay down as necessarily implicit in Arts. 14 and 19 that when there
is no compulsive need to fetter a person's limbs, it is sadistic,
capricious despotic and demoralizing to humble a man by mana-
cling him. Such arbitrary conduct surely slaps Art. 14 on the face. H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A The minimal freedom of movement which even a detainee is
entitled to under Art.19 (see Sunil Batra, supra) cannot be cut
down cruelly by application of handcuffs or other hoops. It will be
unreasonable so to do unless the State is able to make out that no
other practical of forbidding escape is available, the prisoner being
so dangerous and desperate and the circumstance so hostile to
B safe-keeping ... But even here, the policeman's easy assumption or
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 circumstances. Ignominy, inhumanity and afflic-
c tion, implicit in chains and shackles are permissible, as not un-
reasonable, 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
D
measures may be provided, then no iron bondage. This is the legal
norm. 11

Further elaborating the legal norm laid down by this Curt in Shukla's
case, it was observed as under :-
E
"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
F antecedents which must be recorded and proneness to violence
must be authentic. Vague surmises or general averments that the
und.er-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
G police escort will be committing personal assault or mayhem if he
handcuffs or fetters his charge. It is disgusting to see the mechani-
cal way in which callous policemen, cavalier fashion, handcuff
prisoner in their charge, indifferently keeping them company as-
sured by the thought that the detainee is under 'iron' restraint...
H Even orders of superiors are no valid justification as constitutional
CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACYv. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 953

rights cannot be kept in suspense by superior orders, unless there A
is material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable' mind that
dangerous and desperate is the prisoner who is being transported
and further that .by adding to the escort party or other strategy he
cannot be kept under control."

It is not necessary to burden this judgment by quoting further.para-
B_
graphs from the judgment of this Court in Shukla's case. Suffice it to say
that this Court has, clearly and firmly, laid-down that the police and the
jail authorities are under a public duty to prevent the escape of prisoners
- ... and provide them with safe custody but at the same time the rights of the
prisoners guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitu- C
tion of India cannot be infracted. The authorities are justified in taking
suitable measures, legally permissible, to safeguard the custody of the
prisoners, but the use of fetters purely at the whims or subjective discretion
of the authorities is not permissible.

D
This Court in Batra's case and Shuklil's case elaborately dealt with
the extreme situation when the police and jail authorities can resort to
handcuffing of the prisoners inside and outside the jail. It is a pity that the
authorities have miserably failed to follow the law laid down by this Court
in the matter of handcuffing of prisoners. The directions given by this Court
are not being followed and are being treated as a pious declaration. We E
take judicial notice of the fact that the police and the jail authorities are
even now using handcuffs and other fetters indiscriminately and without
any justification. It has, therefore, become necessary to give binding direc-
tions and enforce the same meticulously.
F
We have elaborately narrated the facts of the ~resent case. We are
of the view that there is no basis whatsoever for drawing an inference that
the seven detenues who were lodged inside the ward of ·a hospital were
likely to escape from custody. The antecedents of the detenues are not
known. There is nothing on the record to show that they are prone to
violence. General averments that the detenues are hard-core activists of G
ULFA and that they are accused of terrorists and disruptive activities,
-~ I murder, extortion, holding and smuggling of arms and ammunition are not
sufficient to place them under fetters and ropes while lodged in a closed
ward of the hospital as patients. Security guards were posted outside the
ward. It is not disputed that while in jail the detenues were not handcuffed. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A They cannot be in a \vorst condition \Vhile in hospital und~r treatment as
patients. In any case to safe guard any attempt to escape, extra armed
guards can be deployed around the ward of the hospital where the
.detenues are lodged. The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of
the patient-prisoners who are lodged in the hospital is, the least we can
say, inhuman and in utter violation of the human rights guaranteed to an
B individual under the International Law and the law of the land. We are,
therefore, of the view that the action of the respondents was wholly
unjustified and a~ainst law. We direct that the detenues - in case they are
still in hospital - be relieved from the fetters and the ropes with immediate
effect.
c We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other
fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or under'trial-while
lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit
from one jail to another er from jail to court and back. The police and the
jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to dire~t the hand-
D cuffing 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
E 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 rnade before the said Magistrate. Save in rare cases of concrete proof
regarding proneness of t~e 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 grant permission to
F 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
G 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 form a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed
...
,

unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate for the
H handcuffing of the person to be so arrested.
CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 955

Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police A
officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guide-lines 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.
B
We direct all ranks of police and the prison authorities to meticulous-
ly obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the direc-
tions 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. The writ C
petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

Copy of this judgment be sent to Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs and to all the State and U11ion Territory Governments
through Home Secretaries.
D
R.A. Petition allowed.