- (1.) Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court Mr. Ashwani Bhatia, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) The complaint made in the writ petition is at the instance of a person who is confined in district jail at Sangrur and he states that he is being taken to the Court at every time in hand cuffs is brazen violation of human rights and against express directions of the Supreme Court. Even without serving notice on the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner shall make a statement before the judicial officer before whom he is produced and if he is hand cuffed and brought to the Court he shall inform of such serious violation to the judicial officer and the judicial officer will take appropriate action against the police who makes such violation. It is a very serious infraction of human right which shall not recur save for extraordinary circumstance which the law itself recognizes. In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 3 SCC 526 the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of handcuffing of under trial prisoners to jails and back. "To handcuff is to hoop harshly and to punish humiliatingly. It is necessarily implicit in Articles 14 and 19 that when there is no compulsive need to fetter a person's limbs, it is sadistic, capricious, despotic and demoralising to humble a man by manacling him. The minimal freedom of movement, which even a detainee is entitled to under Article 19, cannot be cut down by application of handcuffs. To be consistent with Articles 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security. No prisoner shall be handcuffed or fettered routinely or merely for the convenience of the custodian or escort. Functional compulsions of security must reach that dismal degree where no alternative will work except manacles. There must be material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable mind that there is clear and present danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by breaking out of the police control and further that by adding to the escort party or other strategy, he cannot be kept under control. The onus of proof in this regard is on him who puts the person under irons." The exceptions were recognized under Rule 22.62 as set out in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Vol. III) The Supreme Court reminded that handcuff law must meet Article 14, 19 and 21. It is prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over harsh and arbitrary. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions both to the police as well as to the judicial officer that any hand cuffing of the petitioner or any person in confinement shall be impermissible when being brought to court for trial. The exceptional circumstances are as set down in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above.;