CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 943 · Decided: 01-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

··• j 
CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY 
v. 
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1995 
[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 
A 
B 
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 VLF A, 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 
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 patient

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.