INTRODUCTION
The case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration serves as a significant judicial examination of the balance between state security measures and the protection of individual fundamental rights in India. The petitioner, Shri Prem Shankar Shukla, challenged the practice of handcuffing prisoners during transit between the jail and the court, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures protection of life and personal liberty , violated. This case not only examines the constitutionality of routine shackling practices, but also aligns them with broader human rights principles set forth in international law. Through its ruling, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the idea that the dignity of individuals must be preserved even within the constraints of legal detention, emphasising the need for judicial supervision and a more humane approach in the treatment of prisoners.
FACTS
The case involves the petitioner, Shri Prem Shankar Shukla, who challenged the practice of handcuffing prisoners during transit between jail and court, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the protection of life and personal liberty guarantee.
Shukla was an undertrial prisoner charged with a serious offence. During his transport to and from court, he was frequently handcuffed by the police. He claimed that this treatment was inhumane and degrading, constituting a violation of his dignity and personal freedom. According to the petitioner, the practice of handcuffing was carried out by the police in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without considering the individual’s behaviour or the specific circumstances of each case.
The respondent, the Delhi administration, defended the handcuffing practice by citing provisions of the Prisoners (Attendance of Courts) Act, 1955, and the rules framed under the Police Act. They argued that these laws justified the use of handcuffs to prevent the escape of prisoners and ensure public safety.
The Supreme Court scrutinised the constitutionality of these provisions and examined whether the routine handcuffing of prisoners without specific and compelling reasons could be justified. The Court observed that such practices must be evaluated against the background of Article 21, which insists on fairness, reasonableness and justice in procedures that deprive individuals of their life and liberty.
In considering the wider implications of the case, the Court referred to international human rights standards, including Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasise humane treatment and respect for dignity . of individuals deprived of their freedom.
The facts of the case highlighted the tension between the need for security and the protection of human dignity, prompting the Court to explore alternatives to handcuffs that would ensure both the safe custody of prisoners and the preservation of their fundamental rights.
ISSUES RAISED
The case presents several critical issues regarding the handcuffing of undertrial prisoners, revolving around fundamental rights, legal provisions and the necessity of such practices.
Violation of fundamental rights:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality): The practice of handcuffing prisoners under trial indiscriminately raises questions about whether this practice violates the right to equality. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The issue here is whether the practice of shackling treats all under-trial prisoners uniformly without regard to individual circumstances, thereby violating this principle of equality.
- Article 19 (Freedom of Movement): Although imprisonment restricts freedom of movement, the issue is whether the additional restriction of handcuffs unnecessarily infringes on the limited freedom of movement that prisoners retain. Article 19 ensures certain freedoms, and its applicability to prisoners’ movement during transit is under scrutiny.
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The core issue is whether handcuffs violate the right to personal liberty and dignity, which is an integral part of Article 21. This article protects life and personal liberty except according to procedure determined by law. The battle is whether routine handcuffing is a legal procedure or an arbitrary and dehumanising practice that violates the dignity of the individual.
Compliance with statutory provisions:
- Prisoners (Attendance of Courts) Act, 1955: The Act regulates the conditions under which prisoners can be transported for court appearances. The issue is whether the routine use of handcuffs is consistent with the provisions of this Act, which may not expressly require such practices without specific safety concerns. The case examines whether the Act’s application is interpreted too broadly, leading to unnecessary shackling.
Security vs. Dignity:
- Balancing security needs with human dignity: An important issue is finding a balance between the need to ensure security during the transport of prisoners and the respect for their human dignity. The argument of the Delhi administration hinges on the need for security and prevention of escapes. The issue is whether this need justifies a blanket policy of handcuffing all pretrial detainees, or if a more individualised approach based on actual risk assessments is required.
Judicial Oversight and Justification:
- Requirement for Judicial Oversight: Another issue is whether there should be judicial oversight in decisions regarding the handcuffing of under-trial prisoners. The case questions whether prison authorities should have unchecked discretion in handcuffing prisoners or if each instance should be reviewed and authorised by a judicial authority to prevent arbitrary actions.
- Necessity for Specific Justification: Linked to judicial oversight is the issue of requiring specific, documented justification for handcuffing a prisoner. The Court considers whether handcuffing should be based on individualised assessments of the risk posed by a prisoner rather than a general policy applicable to all under-trial prisoners.
International Human Rights Standards:
- Alignment with International Norms: The case raises the issue of whether India’s practices regarding the treatment of prisoners align with international human rights standards. It considers conventions and guidelines from bodies such as the United Nations, which advocate for the humane treatment of prisoners and minimal use of restraints.
CONTENTION
Petitioner’s Contention ( Prem Shankar Shukla )
The petitioner, a prisoner, argued that the practice of handcuffing him while being transported between the Tihar Jail and the Delhi Courts was a violation of his fundamental rights. The main points of his argument include:
- Violation of Dignity and Human Rights:
The applicant argued that handcuffing prisoners under trial in public is dehumanising and humiliating. He argued that this practice violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. He stressed that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and the public display of handcuffs seriously undermines this dignity.
- Unconstitutional and Arbitrary Practice:
The petitioner alleged that the routine practice of handcuffing prisoners without specific reasons or judicial orders is arbitrary and unconstitutional. He pointed out that such measures should only be applied when there is a substantial risk of escape or violence, supported by concrete evidence.
- Contravention of Court Orders:
The applicant emphasised that the practice of handcuffing continued despite previous court orders prohibiting the use of irons on him. This blatant disregard of judicial orders was presented as a significant issue, highlighting the need for strict enforcement of court judgments.
- International Human Rights Standards:
The petitioner argued that the practice of handcuffs violated international human rights standards, which India is bound to uphold. He referred to several international covenants and treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasise the humane treatment of detainees and prisoners.
- Lack of Justification:
The applicant argued that the authorities had not provided any substantial justification for handcuffing him. He argued that the decision to handcuff was based on arbitrary and general assessments rather than an individualised assessment of the safety risks he posed.
Respondent’s Contention (Delhi Administration)
The Delhi Administration, representing the respondent, countered the petitioner’s arguments with the following points:
- Security Concerns:
The Delhi Administration argued that handcuffing was necessary for maintaining security and preventing escapes. They contended that the nature of the crimes the petitioner was accused of warranted additional security measures during transportation to and from the court.
- Permitted by Rules:
The respondents asserted that the rules and regulations governing prison administration and the transportation of prisoners allowed for the use of handcuffs. They argued that these provisions were in place to ensure the safety of the prisoner, the public, and the police officers escorting the prisoner.
- Risk of Escape:
The Delhi administration claimed that there was a real risk of the petitioner trying to escape during transit. They argued that handcuffs are a precautionary measure necessary to mitigate this risk and ensure that the applicant does not flee.
- Administrative Discretion:
The respondents argued that the decision to handcuff prisoners falls within the administrative discretion of the prison authorities and the police. They argued that such decisions are made on the basis of practical considerations and security assessments, which should not be interfered with by the judiciary unless there is clear evidence of abuse or arbitrariness.
RATIONALE
The court’s rationale in this case revolves around the interpretation of constitutional rights and the principles of human dignity, particularly focusing on articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgement emphasised that the practice of handcuffing prisoners under trial is not a mere procedural formality, but a significant act that affects the dignity and personal freedom of individuals. The rationale can be broken down into several key points:
- Fundamental Rights and Human Dignity:
- The Court highlighted that even though a person is accused or convicted of a crime, they do not lose their fundamental rights. Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) remain applicable. Handcuffing, being a form of physical restraint, directly impacts these rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- The act of handcuffing is seen as humiliating and degrading, infringing upon human dignity, which is an intrinsic part of Article 21. The Court stressed that the dignity of an individual is to be preserved even when they are lawfully detained.
- Necessity and Proportionality:
- The Court asserted that any restriction on personal liberty must be necessary and proportionate to the risk or threat posed to the individual. Routine handcuffs for no specific reason fail this test. The use of handcuffs should be the exception rather than the rule and should be justified by concrete evidence of the necessity to prevent escape or harm.
- The necessity of handcuffs should be determined based on individual assessment rather than a blanket policy. This assessment must take into account factors such as the nature of the charges, the behaviour of the prisoner and the specific risks involved.
- Judicial Oversight:
- The court directed that decisions on shackles must involve judicial supervision. This means that reasons for handcuffs must be documented and presented to a judicial authority, which will then evaluate the necessity and appropriateness of the measure.
- This oversight ensures accountability and prevents arbitrary use of handcuffs, protecting prisoners’ rights and dignity.
- Statutory and International Norms:
- The Court examined the statutory framework, particularly the Prisoners (Attendance of Courts) Act, 1955, and found that it did not justify routine handcuffing. The Act provides for restraint only under specific circumstances where there is a substantial risk of escape or violence.
- In addition, the Court referred to international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasise the humane treatment of prisoners. The practice of routine handcuffing was found to be inconsistent with these standards.
- Precedent and Judicial Pronouncements:
- The judgement referred to previous rulings and judicial pronouncements that condemned the routine use of handcuffs. It reinforced the principle that any form of physical restraint on prisoners must be justified by the situation’s exigencies and cannot be a routine measure.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The Supreme Court has identified several flaws in the laws and practices governing the handcuffing of prisoners. These defects are of critical importance as they directly affect the constitutional rights and human dignity of under-trial prisoners.
- Lack of specific criteria for handcuffs:
The existing legal framework and prison rules did not specify clear criteria for determining when a prisoner should be handcuffed. This vagueness has led to arbitrary and routine use of handcuffs, often without individual assessment of the necessity or proportionality of such measures. The court emphasised that decisions to handcuff should be based on specific, documented safety risks posed by the prisoner rather than general or presumed risks based on the nature of the charges.
- Absence of Judicial Oversight:
The procedures for deciding to handcuff prisoners lacked adequate judicial oversight. Decisions were often made by prison authorities or transport staff without any requirement for prior judicial approval or subsequent review. The Court emphasised the need for judicial supervision to ensure that any deprivation of liberty or imposition of restrictions is justified, necessary and proportionate to the risk posed by the individual prisoner.
- Violation of Constitutional Rights:
The routine shackles of under-trial prisoners were found to be in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, the right to liberty and the right to life and personal liberty respectively. The Court pointed out that handcuffs, when used arbitrarily, constitute an infringement of human dignity and personal freedom. The laws and practices have failed to adequately protect these fundamental rights, leading to unconstitutional treatment of prisoners.
- Inadequate Consideration of Human Dignity:
The existing legal provisions did not take sufficient account of the impact of shackles on the human dignity of prisoners. The practice was often degrading and humiliating, leading to psychological and emotional distress. The Court emphasised that any security measures, including handcuffs, must respect the inherent dignity of the individual, as required by both national and international human rights standards.
- Insufficient Legal Safeguards:
The laws did not have adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of handcuffing practices. There were no clear guidelines or procedural safeguards to ensure that handcuffs were only used as a last resort and in circumstances where they were strictly necessary. The absence of such safeguards has led to the routine and often unjustified use of restraints, thereby violating prisoners’ rights.
- International Human Rights Violations:
The Court noted that the practice of routine handcuffing was contrary to international human rights standards, including those set out by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). These international norms require that restraints be used only when strictly necessary to prevent escape or harm and should not be applied as a means of punishment. The existing practices in India did not align with these international obligations, thus exposing the country’s legal system to criticism and scrutiny.
Judicial Directions for Reform
To address these defects, the Supreme Court issued several directives aimed at reforming the laws and practices related to handcuffing:
- Prohibition of Routine Handcuffing:
Handcuffing should not be routine and must be justified by specific reasons based on the individual circumstances of each case.
- Requirement for Judicial Approval:
Any decision to handcuff a prisoner must be approved by a judicial authority, ensuring that the measure is necessary and proportionate.
- Documentation and Transparency:
Authorities must document the reasons for handcuffing a prisoner, providing transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
- Training and Sensitization:
Prison and law enforcement personnel should be trained and sensitized to respect the human dignity and constitutional rights of prisoners, ensuring that handcuffing is used sparingly and appropriately.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s judgement in this case serves as a landmark in the protection of prisoners’ rights in India, emphasising the balance between security concerns and the preservation of fundamental human rights. The Court unequivocally stated that being tried or convicted does not strip an individual of their constitutional rights, especially the right to dignity, which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of human rights, even for those within the prison system.
- Human Dignity and Fundamental Rights
At the heart of the Court’s reasoning is the principle that every individual, regardless of their legal status, is entitled to dignity and humane treatment. The routine handcuffing of prisoners without specific, individualised reasons was considered an affront to human dignity. This practice not only violates constitutional provisions, but also goes against the core of international human rights standards. By denouncing this practice, the Court reaffirmed that the state’s power to detain does not extend to degrading or dehumanising treatment of detainees.
- Judicial oversight and accountability
The decision also emphasises the necessity of judicial supervision in cases where personal freedom is at stake. The Court directed that handcuffs should not be standard procedure, but a measure of last resort, applied only when there is a clear and present danger of escape. Such decisions must be backed by substantial evidence and subject to judicial review. This requirement ensures that arbitrary or capricious actions are checked by law enforcement, promoting transparency and accountability.
- Proportionality and Necessity
The principle of proportionality is another critical aspect of the Court’s reasoning. Any restriction on a prisoner’s freedom, such as handcuffs, must be necessary and proportionate to the risk the individual poses. This means that security measures must be carefully tailored and justified, rather than applied indiscriminately. This approach is consistent with broader human rights principles that advocate the least restrictive means to achieve legitimate security goals.
- Alignment with international standards
The court’s ruling also brings Indian prison practices closer to international human rights standards, such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By condemning routine shackling and advocating for humane treatment, the ruling supports India’s commitment to upholding international norms and improves the country’s human rights record.
- Practical implications
In practical terms, this ruling has significant implications for prison administration and law enforcement. This necessitates a shift in training and protocols to ensure that the rights of prisoners are respected. Authorities must now document and justify the use of restraints, which is likely to lead to a reduction in their use and promote a more humane approach to prisoner management.
- Wider impact on legal and social norms
Beyond its immediate implications for prison practices, the judgement serves as a broader statement on the nature of justice and the rule of law in India. It emphasises that the justice system must treat every individual with respect and fairness, regardless of their status as prisoners. This perspective promotes a more compassionate and rights-oriented approach within the justice system and sets a precedent for future cases involving the treatment of detainees.
Anjanesh BALLB
Presidency University Bangalore