Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration – Anjanesh

Facts 

Prem Shankar Shukla, an undertrial prisoner, sent a telegram to a judge of the Supreme Court of India complaining about the use of handcuffs on him and other prisoners while they were being shuttled between Tihar Jail and various courts in Delhi for their hearings are transported. . The prisoners were handcuffed despite previous court orders prohibiting such measures. Shukla’s telegram implicitly protested against the humiliation and physical discomfort caused by being held in irons in public. 

This complaint was taken seriously by the Supreme Court, which under Articles 14¹, 19² and 21³ of the Indian Constitution is tasked with protecting personal liberty. The court examined the facts and legal issues, considering both the petitioner’s grievances and the response of the Delhi administration. 

The applicant argued that the handcuffs were arbitrary and amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and principles enshrined in international human rights documents, such as Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights⁴ and Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,⁵ which emphasize humane treatment for all individuals deprived is. of their freedom. 

The Delhi administration, on the other hand, justified the use of handcuffs on the basis of statutory provisions under the Prisoners (Attendance of Courts) Act, 1955⁶, and relevant rules framed under this Act and the Police Act. They argued that these provisions legalized the practice, with the aim of preventing escape and ensuring security during the transit of prisoners. 

The Court recognized the tension between the need to prevent escapes and the duty to respect the dignity and personal freedom of prisoners. It emphasized that the use of handcuffs should not be arbitrary and should comply with procedural safeguards and constitutional principles. The Court noted the importance of a balance between security concerns and the humane treatment of prisoners, and emphasized that any form of physical restraint should be the minimum necessary and should only be applied when there is a real risk of escape or violence by the prisoner. 

Issues 

¹India Const. art. 14.

²India Const. art. 19. 

³India Const. art. 21. 

⁴ Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 5, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948). ⁵Int’l Covenant on Civil & Political Rights art. 10, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. ⁶ Prisoners (Attendance of Courts) Act, 1955, 5 & 6 Eliz. 2, c. 69 (Eng.). 

● Whether the practice of handcuffing undertrial prisoners during transit violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. 

● Whether there can be a quasi-caste system among prisoners, distinguishing between ordinary prisoners and “better class” prisoners in terms of handcuffing. 

Law Applicable 

Article 14 – Right to Equality 

● Text: “The State shall deny to no person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” 

7 

● Interpretation: Section 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all individuals. It prohibits any form of arbitrary discrimination by the state. In this case, the arbitrary classification of prisoners and the unequal treatment based on socio-economic status under this article were challenged. The Supreme Court emphasized that any differential treatment must have a reasonable basis and be justifiable under the principles of equality and non-discrimination. 

Article 19 – Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc. 

● Text: “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions; to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.”⁸ 

● Interpretation: Although primarily concerned with the rights of free citizens, Article 19’s relevance in this case lies in the broader context of personal liberties. Handcuffing prisoners during transit was seen as an infringement on their freedom to move freely and their dignity. The Court held that while certain restrictions on movement are inherent in incarceration, they may not be arbitrary or excessive. 

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty 

● Text: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”⁹ 

⁷India Const. art. 14.

⁸India Const. art. 19. 

⁹India Const. art. 21. 

● Interpretation: Article 21 is a cornerstone of fundamental rights in India, which includes a wide range of rights necessary for a dignified life. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this article to include the right to live with dignity, personal liberty and humane treatment, even for prisoners. The practice of handcuffing has been scrutinized under this article, and the Court has emphasized that any restriction on personal liberty must be reasonable, fair and just and follow due process of law. 

Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 

● This law regulates the procedures to ensure the attendance of prisoners in courts. The law states that prisoners must be treated with dignity and that necessary measures must be taken to ensure their attendance without excessively harsh or degrading treatment. 

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 

● The rules under this Act provide guidelines for the treatment of prisoners, including their transport to and from courts. Rule 26.22 deals specifically with the conditions under which prisoners may be handcuffed. It states that handcuffs should be the exception rather than the norm and should only be applied when there is a reasonable fear of escape or violence. The reasons for such measures must be recorded and subjected to judicial inquiry. 

10 

Judicial Precedents 

● Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 

11 

The Supreme Court in this landmark case laid down guidelines for the treatment of prisoners and emphasized the need for humane conditions in prisons. The court found that fundamental rights do not end at the prison gates and that prisoners are entitled to constitutional protection. 

● Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar (1978)¹² 

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against the solitary confinement and inhumane treatment of prisoners, and reiterated that any form of punishment must respect the basic human dignity and rights of prisoners in terms of the Constitution. 

¹⁰ Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 26.22.

¹¹ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494. 

¹² Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1978 SC 1514 (India). 

● D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)¹³ 

This case provided comprehensive guidance on the treatment of individuals in detention, including protection against torture and inhumane treatment. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards and accountability to prevent abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. 

Analysis 

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and emphasized the importance of human dignity and personal freedom even for prisoners. The court found that: 

● Arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of prisoners, such as handcuffing based on their socio-economic status, violated Article 14. 

● The practice of handcuffing without proper justification was a violation of the prisoners’ personal liberty in terms of article 21. The Court reiterated that any restriction on personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. 

● The Court rejected the classification of prisoners into ordinary and “better class” based solely on socio-economic status, stressing that such a distinction is incompatible with the egalitarian principles enshrined in the Constitution. 

The Court noted that handcuffs should only be used in rare cases where there is concrete evidence that the prisoner poses a risk of escape or violence. Even in such cases, the reasons for handcuffing must be recorded and approved by a judicial officer to prevent arbitrary and excessive use of this measure. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court allowed the petition and ruled that the petitioner should not be handcuffed during transit unless there was substantial evidence to justify such a measure. The Court’s decision reinforced the principle that the dignity and personal liberty of prisoners must be upheld and protected, ensuring that any restrictions on these rights must be reasonable and necessary, subject to judicial review. 

¹³ D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).

The judgment emphasized the need for the prison administration to take more humane and less intrusive measures to ensure the safety of prisoners in transit, in line with constitutional mandates and human rights considerations