PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA VS DELHI ADMINISTRATION

[1980] 3 SCC 526

ABSTRACT
This is a case analysis of the case names as Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration
[1980] 3 SCC 526. This case is considered an important case that revolves around the
question of whether handcuffing a prisoner is a violation of the Indian Constitution. The case
has been analyzed and summarized according to different heads: background of the case,
facts of the case, issues of the case, arguments put up by petitioner and respondent sides,
legal aspect and critical analysis of the judgment. This case emphasized legal provisions like
Section 49, 50, 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. The Supreme Court of India provided that handcuffing is prima facie arbitrary and
unreasonable and can only be used on a restrictive basis.
KEYWORDS
Human Rights, handcuffing, under trial prisoners, human dignity, torture
INTRODUCTION
A Prisoner is an individual who is denied freedom. The rights of prisoners are protected by
both national and worldwide law. They are vulnerable categories of citizens in each nation,
because of the control of the state. However, guaranteeing human rights for detainees
becomes difficult because of the lack of interest, separation from the outside world and the
conflicting laws. The Indian Constitution provides us the freedom to move and live our lives
without any type of restraints. It also ensures providing rights to all the citizens in India
without any discrimination. Right to Dignity is considered to be an important right that is
provided to every citizen in our country. It says that every person even if he belongs to a high
class or is a citizen should be treated humanely without any torture.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration is considered to be a landmark
case which was delivered by the Supreme Court. The question which revolved in the case
was does handcuffing a prisoner is a violation of the Indian Constitution. The brief facts of
the case are that Prem Shankar Shukla who was the petitioner in this case was an under-trial
prisoner in Tihar Jail. He was kept under the categorization of “better class prisoners”. The
petitioner was taken from the prison to the Magistrate Court for various hearings. The Trial
Court gave an order to the officer who was looking after this case that the petitioner should
not be handcuffed while he is being brought to the court. However, the officers used to
forcefully handcuff him again and again even after the order of the trial court. After this, the
petitioner sent a telegram to one of the judges in the Supreme Court that he was been
tormented and humiliated. Later the petitioner filed a petition of Habeas Corpus related to the
use of handcuffing which was later taken up by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

These are certain questions that were raised in the present case:
1) The first question which was raised in this case was whether it was justified to use
handcuffs on the prisoner or not?
2) The second question which was raised up in this case whether the division of prisoners on
the basis of their background in two classes was valid or not?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER SIDE

- The side of the petitioner gave a submission saying that the Trial Court Judge Justice AK
Garg passed an order saying that the better class prisoners should not be handcuffed and can
only be handcuffed if there is an urgency to do so. However, even after passing the order, the
escalating officers kept handcuffing the petitioner when he was taken to court for trials. The
officers also didn’tsubmit any sufficient reasoning for the handcuffing of the petitioner.

- The petitioner side also argued that the prisoner belongs to the “better class persons” and
should not be subjected to any type of torture and humiliation without any proper warrant.

- The petitioner side also said that handcuffing of a prisoner was not only against the order of
the Magistrate but also against the Constitutional Right to Dignity. This act was leading to
custodian cruelty as the prisoner was forcefully handcuffed by the officers.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

- The respondent side said that the petitioner was taken from prison to the court under the
protection of a special wing of the police force. They also contended that the law allows the
use of ironclads if there is a high risk of the prisoner’s security.
- The respondent side argued that the handcuffing of the prisoner was necessary as the
prisoner was a clever crook and could run away easily if the handcuffs were not used.

- The respondent also said that the petitioner posed a major threat to the public and could
have used any type of plan or strategy to let himself free from the police authorities.

LEGAL ASPECTS
This case can be read with reference to the different provisions which is given under the
Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are different provisions
under the law that can be studied separately for understanding and analyzing the case.

SECTION 49
Section 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers that there should be no unnecessary
restriction. “This particular section states that the person arrested shall not be subjected to
more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

SECTION 50
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers that the person who is arrested should be

informed on the grounds of arrest and right to bail. “Every police officer or other person
arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of
the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”
“Where a police officer arrest without warrant any person other than a person accused of a
non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on
bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.”

SECTION 51
Section 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the – Search of Arrested Person
“Whenever a person is arrested by a police officer under a warrant which does not provide for
the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person
arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without a warrant, or by a
private person under a warrant, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish
bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police
officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe
custody all articles, other, than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him and where any
article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by
the police officer shall be given to such person.”“Whenever it is necessary to cause a female
to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency.”

ARTICLE 32
Article 32 of The Constitution of India, 1949 deals with the Remedies for enforcement of
rights conferred by this Part 3
1 “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed;
2 The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this part;
3 Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court the parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court;
4 The rights guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided by this Constitution.”

PRECEDENTS OF THE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT

The court observed that handcuffing a prisoner should not violate Article 14, 19 and Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. There have been various cases related to handcuffing in India.
There has been a recent case where the Madras High Court passed an order under which two
constables were held liable to pay Rs 5000 each as compensation for handcuffing a person
without any type of permission and consent from the magistrate [1]. Under the case of Prem
Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, the court held that handcuffs are considered to
be prima facie inhumane and arbitrary. The court said that the prisoner should be escorted by
the police authorities with proper security but handcuffing cannot be considered [2]. The
court also held that if the person has been previously convicted of a crime or has committed a
serious non-bailable offence or can escape or can commitsuicide then he can be handcuffed.
It also held that the police should take permission from the magistrate and should record all
the reasons for handcuffing. Under the case of Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration [3] the
court held that handcuffs and bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our goal of human dignity and
social justice. This was later discussed under the case of Citizens for Democracy vs State of
Assam[4] under which the court said that prior judicial consent is considered necessary for
handcuffing of a prisoner. If there was an arrest with a warrant then the1 handcuffs can only
be used with the permission of the judges however if it was an arrest without a
warrant then handcuffs can be used by the police according to the proper requirements of law.

Under the case of ManekaGandhi vs Union of India [5], it was contended that handcuffing
is a prima facie inhumane and unreasonable act. There is a lack of fair procedure to prevent
the escape of an under-trial. The prisoner should not be inflicted with irons as it would be
violative of Article 21. Under the case of N.H Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra [6], it was
contended if any prisoner breaks down because of any type of physical infliction, psychic
pressure or mental torture then the prison authorities should be held liable for the same.

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

After understanding the facts circumstances and arguments of the case the court held that
there should be no categorization of prisoners according to their background as that would be
considered violative ofArticle 14, Article 19 and 21 given under the Indian Constitution. The
court held that the categorization of prisoners for handcuffing is considered to be irrational
and arbitrary. It declared that differentiation between a better class person and a non-better
class person directly violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The better class prisoners
are educated and should be given a proper standard of living whereas the non-better class
prisoners were not educated and were subjected to harsh measures. Rules 26 and 21 (a) of the
Punjab Police Rules provided a distinction between better class and non-better class persons.
The court said that this rule was invalid and should not treat prisoners according to the basis
of their background. The court further stated that according to order 44 clause 5 stated that
the authorities are allowed to use handcuffs when the prisoner is dangerous and a high risk of
security is needed. It was held that the police authorities should record all the reasons for
handcuffing a prisoner. It was also seen that the prisoners should not be deprived of their
basic rights. Therefore, under this case, the court held that the petition was allowed to be
1
1. Devyani Srivastava, ‘Illegal Practice of Handcuffing Continues in India’ (2012) 5 (15) NIPSA
<https://networkforimprovedpolicinginsouthasia.wordpress.com/tag/prem-shankar-shukla-vs-delhi-
administration/> Last accessed on 30th November, 2020
2. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579
4. Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam, (1995) 3 SCR 943
entertained by the Supreme Court and the petitioner should not be handcuffed by the police
authorities. The handcuffs can only be used if the police authority feels that the prisoner can
escape and can pose a threat to the public. No person should be deprived of his Right to
Dignity.2

CONCLUSION
Under this case, the Supreme Court held that there are certain guidelines which should be
followed by everyone and that handcuffing is prima facie arbitrary and unreasonable. It was
stated that there should be other alternatives that should be adopted by the police authorities
to ensure safe custody without any type of barbarous cruelty towards the prisoner and to
prevent the escape of the prisoner. No prisoner should be handcuffed for the sake of the
prisoner. It was also stated that if handcuffing is the only option then there should be a
consent of the magistrate and the police authorities should record all the reasons for
handcuffing a prisoner. Therefore, we see that handcuffs should be used on a restrictive basis.
Every individual should be protected under Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

SUGGESTIONS
Firstly the problems which are faced by the police in the execution of handcuffing should be
monitored properly. Secondly, a patrolling team should be kept on surveillance when the
prisoner is being escorted to the court from the prison. Thirdly, there should be more prison
vans with technological advancements for ensuring the security and safety of prisoners and
escorting officers.

REFERENCES
1. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579
3. Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam 1995 (3) SCR 943
4. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 2 SCR 621
5. N.H Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra 1979 1 SCR 192

2
5.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621
6.N.H Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCR 192
BRIEF ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I am Sidrah Jami, 5th year law student at Amity Law School, Amity University Noida. In the
past years I’ve interned under various firms dealing with matters related to IPR, taxation and
customs. I’ve written 20 research papers which have been published under various national
and international journals. I am specializing in International law and have a keen interest in
International Human Rights.