PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA

Vs.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION

[AIR1980SC1535]
BY
ARUSHI VERMA
SHRISHTI VERMA
SANSKRITI SINGH
“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until
one sees how it treats its prisoners”
Appellants: Prem Shankar Shukla

Respondent: Delhi Administration

Decided On: 29 April 1980

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: O. Chinnappa Reddy, R.S. Pathak and V.R. Krishna

Iyer, JJ.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
In the present case a prisoner, Mr. P.S. Shukla sent a telegram to
the judge of the Supreme Court, which was converted to a
habeas corpus petition, complaining of forced handcuffing while
he was taken to Court from Tihar Jail for his trial and back. The
petition was on behalf of all the other prisoners implicitly
protesting against the humiliation and torture of being held in
irons in public. He also highlighted that as he was a better-class
prisoner he shroud be prioritized over ordinary prisoners.
 ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether Handcuffing a prisoner is constitutionally valid or not?

Whether differentiation of prisoners into the ordinary or better

class under Punjab Police Rules, 1954 valid or not?
 DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL
COURT
Jst. AK Garg, in the Trial court, under which the petitioner PS Shukla was
under trial, gave the decision that handcuffs should not be used and made
applicable while taking the petitioner was taken to the court and back for
the trial unless it was so warranted by rule applicable
to better class prisoners and if it so warranted by the exigency of the
situation on obtaining the requisite permission of Judicial Officer. However,
the escorting officers continued the handcuffing.
 DECISIONS OF THE DELHI
HIGH COURT
The petitioner had previously filed a petition before the Delhi High Court
seeking directions for not putting the handcuffs when escorted from jail to
the court and back to the Jail. However, in view of the circumstances of the
case, the petition was dismissed by Jst Yogeshwar Dayal, who held that no
directions were needed and unless there be a reasonable expectation of
violence or attempt to be rescued the prisoner should not be handcuffed
Arguments by Petitioner
Handcuffing violates articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
As the Petitioner is a better-class prisoner, there was no need
for the authority put him under any kind of fetters.
Arguments by Respondent
Handcuffing is legal as they are put under the Police Act, and
Punjab Police Rules which also differentiate between better-
class and ordinary-class prisoners
Since the petitioner is under trial he may flee, thus
handcuffing is necessary
Even though the petitioner is a better-class prisoner he is a
trickster and cheats so it is easy for him to escape by tricking
the constable.
 Judgment (Justice Krishna Iyer)

imprisonment does not mean that fundamental rights desert the detainee
handcuffs are not to be treated by the police officers as scriptural authority
handcuffs only necessary in non-cognizable offences, violent or desperate
prisoner
duty of the supervisory officer to see if the instructions are followed
diary should be maintained which contains required information
insurance against escape does not necessarily require handcuffing
 Provisions Applied
Article 14: Right to equality before law
Article 19: Right to freedom
Article 21: Right to life & personal liberty
Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 10 of International Convenant on Civil & Political rights
Section 46 and Section 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)
 Judgment (Justice R.S. Pathak)

Arbitrary use of powers given under S.46 & S.49 (CRPC) infringes Fundamental
rights
distinction drawn between "better" & "ordinary" class prisoners
Dignity belongs to all and every individual has a right to enjoy that dignity
the classification principle must be defined by the need to prevent the prisoner
from escaping
the question of handcuffing should be left to dealt by the Magistrate concerned
 Related Case Laws
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others, 1980 AIR 1579

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
 Important Incidents
1988 Case: Lawyer named Rajesh Agnihotri, after he was apprehended
by the students of St Stephen's College for allegedly stealing from a
ladies common room. Kiran bedi arrested him. Further he was presented
before the tis hazari court with his handcuffed and lawyers started
protesting it. Later handcuffing was found illegal.
In case of Shri. Suprit Ishwar Divate vs The State Of Karnataka where the
law student was compensated with 2 lakhs rupees for being handcuffed
without reason by the police.
 Conclusion
Above verdict made the handcuffing of prisoners as a routine
practice an act violative of art. 14, 19, 21 and laid down guidelines for
putting Handcuffs on the prisoners

Thank You!