Is it always necessary to use Handcuffs to Restrain the Accused?

 

LEGAL WEBSITE

CONTACT

Is it always necessary to use Handcuffs to Restrain the Accused?

KEY POINTS

• The Delhi Court rejected the request of Delhi Police to bring Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in handcuffs.

• It was stated before the court that they were neither gangsters nor former offenders.

• There was no need to handcuffs them because they were not being produced physically before the Hon’ble Court.

• Today, we explore in this article that is it always necessary to use handcuffs to constraint the accused.

• It is strange that there was no provision which covered Handcuffing and fettering prisoners under the Delhi Prison Rules.

• That according to Superintendent, Producing an accused does not fall under the scope of the Tihar Jail administration.

Brief:-

A Delhi court recently refused a request to produce Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid on the grounds that they were high-risk prisoners who had attempted to help under-trial prisoners in escaping from the Jail. According to Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, the reason for rejecting the plea was that the accused were neither criminals nor gangsters.

Furthermore, it appeared that the application was made with no conscious mind and that it was unnecessary because the accused were not to be presented physically due to the current pandemic procedures. According to the Additional DCP, Special Cell's response, no application had been submitted requesting that the accused has to be shown while handcuffing from behind.

State V. Umar Khalid and State V. Khalid Saifi is the case that is being examined here. Although it may appear that this debate is merely about handcuffing the accused but there is a lack of understanding about when it is necessary/allowed to handcuff someone and what Options are available to him.

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AGAINST HANDCUFFING:-

Every individual, including those who have been accused of a crime and are in the middle of a police investigation, has certain human rights that are provided and made available to them.

That was stated in the landmark Supreme Court judgment of Prem Shanker V. Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 SC 1535]. That Handcuffing the accused while bringing them to the jail and before the Court during trial proceedings was disapproved.

There is no need to punish a man severely and humiliatingly or to bind his limbs, as mentioned in Articles 14 and 19. The right to freedom of movement applies to those in detention as well, and it is not meant to be taken away by using handcuffs. The application of Section 220 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be invoked when authority is used maliciously to confine a person (IPC).

WHAT DOES SECTION 220 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE SAY?

According to Section 220 of the IPC, whoever, while in any office that gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits or keeps any person in confinement in the exercise of that authority, knowing that he is acting against the law, shall be punished with a period of imprisonment that may exceed to seven years, a fine, or both?

WHAT ARE THE SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES ON HANDCUFFING THE ACCUSED?

Handcuffs are more often misused to subject a prisoner or accused to humiliation as a form of punishment or to relieve the escorting party of their duty in order to prevent escape. The Supreme Court has declared that handcuffing an accused individual to prevent him from fleeing can only be used when the individual is hostile and violent.

Just because police officers have the authority to handcuff a person isn’t sufficient reason to justify the misuse of this power, the law imposes severe restrictions on this authority to avoid abuse and arbitrary usage.

One such restriction is the prohibition on using handcuffs on a regular basis. The mere fact that a prisoner has been involved in criminal proceedings is insufficient justification for handcuffing him.        

The different rules and regulations connected to handcuffing individuals have been abolished because they were violating the Principles of the Indian Constitution's Article 14. When there is a risk of a prisoner escaping or if the prisoner is a dangerous criminal, handcuffs may be used. In such a situation, The Court must be informed of the reasons for allowing the use of the same, which must be properly documented.

INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE HANDCUFFING OF THE ACCUSED

Because many prisoners refused to go outside of fear of being seen handcuffed by a police officer, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment recommends that measures be taken to ensure that every prisoner has the right to have a private life free of restrictions.

No individual should be subjected to torture, cruel, barbaric, or degrading treatment or punishment, according to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948.

All those who have been deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and respect, according to Article 10 of the same treaty.

CASE REFERENCES

SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [AIR 1978 SC 1675]: States that the handcuffs should not be used routinely and that the use of handcuffs and chains does not limit to Article 19 of the Constitution.

DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA [AIR 1980 SC 1535]: States that the Handcuffs should only be used when a person has suicidal tendencies or involved in a non-Bailable offense, is likely to flee, or has a violent and aggressive personality. It was also established that even superiors' commands were not sufficient grounds for handcuffing someone.

 

STATE OF ASSAM vs. CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY [SCC 743, 1995]: States that Handcuffing without reasonable cause is inhumane, unjust, and arbitrary, according to the court. Personality, causes, and tendencies are all important factors to consider while keeping a prisoner in chains. Except under exceptional situations, handcuffing is not permissible without the consent of a Magistrate.

RAVI KANT S PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1991 SCC 373]: States that handcuffing of an under-trial prisoner in violation of Article 21 entitles him to compensation.

FINAL REMARKS

As we've seen, there are more prohibitions against handcuffing someone than there are that explicitly allow it. This is one of the key reasons why Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi's request to be brought in handcuffs was denied. The use of handcuffs as a restriction on convicts is prohibited by such stringent restrictions, which prevent the arbitrary application of legislation and the authority granted by it. Handcuffing, and any physical restriction on a person in a larger international context is seen as an infringement on human rights and should be avoided at all costs unless circumstances make it impossible to find another option.