Why are Jamshedpur Advocates up in arms over ‘handcuffing’ of fellow Advocate?

Jamshedpur: Those who are arrested on a criminal charge, or are undertrials, are often seen in handcuffs. Then why are Jamshedpur advocates up in arms against the arrest and handcuffing of a fellow advocate Chandan Chaturvedi in connection with Kadma Shashtri Nagar communal violence case?

Legal experts point out that handcuffing is a controversial issue in India, with many cases of abuse and violation of human rights being reported.

However, the Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines on the use of handcuffs on undertrial prisoners, which are aimed at balancing the interests of the State and the fundamental rights of the accused.

In the landmark case of Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration in 1978, the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines on the use of handcuffs on undertrial prisoners.

The Court observed that the use of handcuffs on an undertrial prisoner would constitute a violation of his fundamental rights unless there was a real and present risk of escape or harm. The Court held that the decision to use handcuffs must be based on objective criteria, such as the prisoner’s criminal history and behaviour, and must not be used as a form of punishment or humiliation.

The Court further observed that the use of handcuffs must be the last resort in exceptional circumstances, where there is a real and present risk of escape or harm.

In India, the use of handcuffs has been restricted by directives from the Supreme Court, which require law enforcement agencies to obtain permission from the court before handcuffing a person. Recently, the Delhi High Court rejected an application by the Delhi Police seeking permission to restrain activists Dr. Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi by handcuffing them during their appearance in court for the Delhi violence conspiracy case. The court observed that they were not gangsters and questioned the rationale behind the request.

This jurisprudence has evolved over time and is based on the idea that handcuffing is an unnecessarily restrictive and humiliating practice that deprives a person of their dignity, despite the possibility of them being deemed innocent by the court after trial. The motive of using handcuffs in the first place is to restrict the movement of someone who is a flight risk. It’s not necessary that every under trial or accused would try to flee, and thus the humiliation of being bound in handcuffs is an unreasonable practice, which the courts have agreed should be done away with unless in extreme circumstances, as a last resort.

In the landmark case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that the indiscriminate resort to handcuffs is illegal, and shall be stopped forthwith, except in a small category of cases. The court also decried the practice of making classifications in handcuffing prisoners, i.e. higher class prisoners not to be fettered but an ordinary citizen would, as an arbitrary classification.

The court held that the escorting officer must show reasons to the presiding judge on why the accused has been handcuffed and get the judge’s approval. The court thus left the discretion on whether a prisoner should be handcuffed or not upon the trial court in adherence to the observations made by the court in this judgment.

The Supreme Court has issued several other directives over the years, reiterating the restrictions on the use of handcuffs.

The court has declared that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner – convicted or under-trial – while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.

Aside from the directives of the Supreme Court, prisons are also guided by the Prisons Act, 1894. The use of fetters is permitted if the Rules made by the respective State government allow it. The Act allows the imposition of fetters under section 46(7) as a punishment to offences committed in prison. However, under section 58, prisoners are protected from the whims of the jail authorities to be put in fetters.

International standards such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, prohibit the use of chains, irons or other instruments of restraint that are inherently degrading or painful.

The use of other instruments of restraint can be used if authorized by law as a precaution during transfer and by prison authorities if other methods of preventing the prisoner from injuring other prisoners or damaging property, fail.

The unwarranted use of handcuffs or fetters is a violation of basic human rights as it is seen as a sadistic, capricious, despotic measure while humiliating the accused or convict in the eyes of others.

Legal experts feel that it is a deprecatory practice that finds no space in a 21st century society where we aim to uphold human rights for all irrespective of their deeds, character, and social standing.