PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 29-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.f 
PREM SHANK.AR SHUKLA 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
April 29, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. PATHAK AND 
o. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
855 
Hu111an 
justice 
vis-a-vis Detention 
Jurisprudence-Manacling 
a 
man 
accused at an ofiencc, constitutional validity of-Constitution of India Arti-
cles 14, 19 and 21--ls.suance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for human
1 
Justice under Article 32 of the Constitution-Univer.rol Declaration of Human 
Rights, 1948 Articles 5 and IO read lvith nonns in Part III and the provi-
sions in the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955-Punjab Police Rules, 
1934, r·o/. ll/ Chop. 25. Rule 26 : 22, 23. 
Allo,ving the petition, the Court 
HELD : Per /~er J. (On behalf of Chinnappa Reddy J. and himself). 
1. The guarantee of human dignity forms part of an Constitutional cu17 
ture and the positive provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 spring into action 
to disshackle any man since to manacle 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 'dangerousness' and security. 
Even a 
prisoner is 
a 
person, 
not 
an 
animal, 
and 
an 
undertrial 
prisoner 
is 
A 
B 
D 
a fortiori so. 
Our nations founding document admits 
of 
no 
exception. 
E 
Therefore. all measures authorised by the law must be taken by the Court 
to keep the stream of prison justice unsullied. [862 D-F, 863 E-F] 
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Ors., 
[1978] 4 S.C.C. 494; 
fol~ 
lowed. 
2. Th~ Supreme Court is the functional sentinel on the 
qui vive 
wherei 
F 
"habeas" justice is in jeopardy. If iron enters the soul of law and of the 
enforcing agents of la\v-rather, if it is credibly alleged so-the Supreme 
Court must fling aside forms of procedure and defend the complaining indivi; 
dual's personal liberty under Articles 14, 19 and 21 after due investigation .. 
Access to human justice is the essence of Article 32. [864 A-BJ 
3. Where personal freedom is at stake or torture is in 
store to read 
down the law is to write off the law and to rise to the remedial demand of 
the mariacled man is to break human bondage, if within the reach of judicial 
process. [864 F-GJ 
4. There cannot be a quasi-caste system among prisoners in the egalitarian 
context of Article 14, In plain language, to say that the "better class nnder, 
trial be not handcuffed without recording the reasons 
in the 
daily diary 
for considering the -necessity of the use on such a prisoner while escort to 
and from court" means that ordinary Indian undertrials shall be rentively 
handcuffed during transit between jail and court and the better class prisoner 
G 
B 
A 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 s.c.R. 
shall be so confined only if reasonably apprehended to be violent or rescued 
and is against the express provisions of Article 21. [863 D-E, 865 G-H] 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621 @ 647; applied. 
Vishwanath v. State, Crl. Misc. Main No. 430 
of 
1978 
decid¢ 
on 
6-4-79 (Delhi High Court); overruled_ 
B 
S. Though circurn.scribed by the constraints of lawful 
detention, 
the 
indwelling essence and inalienable attributes of man qua n1an are entitled 
to the great rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 
That is why in India, 
as in the sin1ilar jurisdiction in America, the broader horizons of habeas corpus 
spread out, beyond 'the orbit of release from illegal custody, into every 
trauma and torture on persons in legal custody, if the cruelty is contrary to 
law, degrades human dignity 01• defiles his persohhood to a degree that violaJes 
C 
Article' 21, 14 and 19 enlivened by the Preamble. [868 A-B, 867 G-H] 
6. The collection of handcuff law, namely, 
Prisoners 
(Attendance 
in 
Courts) Act, 1955; Pun1ab Police Rules, 1934, (VoL Ill) 
Rules 
26 : 
22(i) 
(a) to (f); 26.21A, 27.12, Standing Order 44, Instruction on handcuffs of 
November, 1977, and Orders of April 1979, must meet the 
demands 
of 
Articles 14, 19 and 21. Irons forced on undertria1s in transit must conform 
D 
to the humane imperatives of the triple articles. Official cruelty, sans consti· 
tutionality degenerates into criminality. Rules, St\1nding orders, Instruct'ions 
and Circulars must bow before Part III of the Constitution. [872 B-D] 
E 
F 
G 
The Preamble sets the human tone and temper of the Founding Docu-
'1ent and highlights justice, Equality and the dignity of the individual, 
Arti-
cle 14 interdicts arbitrary treatment, discriminatory dealings and capricious 
cru

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