PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA VS DELHI ADMINISTRATION : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla Vs Delhi Administration (1980) AIR 1535 held that freedom from handcuff during transit between the prison house and court house will be the rule except the exceptional circumstances.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Prem Shankar Shukla, a prisoner in Tihar jail, sent a telegram to a judge of the Supreme Court protesting against being handcuffed while being taken from prison to Delhi Courts, back and forth, for trail of their cases. The Supreme Court initiated habeus corpus proceedings on telegram of Prem Shankar Shukla.
He had approached earlier Delhi High Court for relief which had been dismissed. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court through telegram.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court observed that to manacle a man is more than to mortify him. It is to dehumanize him and therefore to violate his very personhood, too often using the mask of “dangerous” and “security”. It violates provisions of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21.
The Supreme Court noted that even a prisoner is a person, not an animal and that an undertail prisoner a fortiori so.
The Supreme Court noted that Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 10 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
The Petitioner contended that his social status, family background and academic qualifications warrant his being treated as better class prisoner and he should not be handcuffed.
The Supreme Court observed that handcuff law must meet the demands of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21. Handcuffing is prima-facie inhuman and ‘therefore’ unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first flush arbitrary. The competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting the personality from barbarity have to be harmonized.
The Supreme Court observed that social and economic importance cannot be basis for classifying prisoners for purposes of handcuffs. The Supreme Court held it arbitrary and irrational to classify prisoners for purposes of handcuffs into better class and ordinary class. No one can be fettered in any form based on superior class differentia as the law treats them equally.
The Supreme Court observed that the only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons- an extreme measure- is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing escape, in the given circumstances.
The Supreme Court declared that the rule regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house is freedom from handcuffs except the exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court mandated the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other “iron” treatment and if has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this judgment.
__________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.