SUNIL GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 02-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUNIL GUPTA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1990 
rs. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
"" 
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation: Chapter VII Part Ill Rule 
~. 
' 
. 
r 
465-Prisoners-handcuffs-Use of-Directions by Court-Person 
remanded-by judicial order-Escort party to obtain orders of Court. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Handcuffitig and parad-
ing of offenders; escort party to record and intimate reasons for impos-
ing fetters-Obtain Court Orders. 
The petitioners are social workers and Members of Kisan Adivasi 
Sangathan, Kesala. They, alongwith a large number of tribal people, 
had staged peaceful 'dharnas' in front of the office of Block Education 
Officer demanding appointment of regular teachers in the school 
located in the tribal hamlets. The local police initiated criminal proceed-
ings against them for offences punishable under section 186 IPC on the 
allegations that they had obstrncted public servants in discharge of 
their public functions. The Magistrate convicted petitioners l to 3 and 
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one 
month. The petitioners l and 2 though having served their one month 
imprisonment from 22.4.1989 to 21.5.1989 were not released from jail 
but continued to be detained on the allegation that they were wanted in 
two more cases. 
In the writ petitions filed in this Court the main grievance was 
that petitioners l to 3 on being arrested were subjected to torture and 
treated in a degrading and inhuman manner by handcuffing and parad-
ing them through the public thoroughfare during transit to the Court. 
in utter disregard to the judicial mandates of this Court. On these 
allegations the petitioners contended that they were entitled to 
compensation. 
The respondents have not denied the allegation of handcuffing, 
but have attempted to justify the action of the escort police. In this 
connection, the respondents have relied on Paragraph 465(1) of Part III 
dealing with escorting of arrested and convicted persons (including 
871 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
872 
SI JPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
,. 
( 
Political Persons) falling under Chapter VII of Madhya Pradesh Police \. 
A 
Regulations. Under this regulation, if the escort-in-charge feels the 
J 
necessity of handcuffing persons, he is empowered to do so. 
-
Disposing of the petitions, this Court, 
B 
HELD: (I) In spite of weighty pronouncement made hy this Court 
decrying and severely condemning the conduct of the escort police in 
handcuffing the prisoners without any justification, it is very unfortu-
"' 
nate that the Courts have to repeat and re-repeat its disapproval of 
unjustifiable handcuffing. [862G] 
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 526; 
. l 
c Bhim Singh, M.L.A. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1985] 4 
S.C.C. 677; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 1SCC248; Sunil 
Batra v.Delhi Administration, [1978] 4 SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. 
! 
Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 488, referred to. 
D 
(2) The petitioners are educated persons and selflessly devoting 
their service to the public cause. They are not the persons who have got 
tendency to escape from the jail custody. In fact, the petitioners 1 and 2 
even refused to come out on bail, but chose to continue in prison for a 
public cause. The offence for which they were tried and convicted under 
section 186 of Indian Penal Code is only a bailable offence. [8848-C] 
~ 
' 
E 
( 3) When a person is remanded by a judicial order by a compe-
tent court, that person comes within the judicial custody of the Court. 
Therefore, the taking of a person from a prison to the Court or back 
from Court to the prison by the escort party is only under the judicial _J 
orders of the Court. [8840] 
F 
( 4) Even if extreme circumstances necessitate the. escort party to 
; 
bind the prisoners in fetters, the escort party should record the reasons 
for doing so in writing and intimate the Court so that the Court con-
sidering the circumstances either approves or disapproves the action of 
the escort party and issues necessary directions. [884D] 
G 
( 5) Undeniably, the escort party neither got instructions nor 
obtained any orders in writing from the Magistrate or the Jail 
"' 
Superintendent regarding handcuffing of the petitioners. [88ID] 
( 6) Even assuming that the petitioners obstructed public servants 
H in <lischarge of their public functions during the 'dharna' or rai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.