SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 621

KULDIP SINGH, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
Citizens For Democracy Through Its President – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajit Kumar, Bhola Prasad Singh, DIPANKAR GUPTA, KAPIL SIBAL, Mukul Mudgal, P.P.Rao, Sinha Das

Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.

(1) "WE clearly declare - and it shall be obeyed from the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jailwarder - that the rule, regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house, is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have indicated earlier, will be restraints with irons, to be justified before or after. We mandate the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other irons treatment and, if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this judgment." Ordained this court - speaking through V.R. Krishna lyer, J.

(2) IN Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. 2 this court pronounced that undertrials shall be deemed to be in custody, but not undergoing punitive imprisonment. Fetters, especially bar fetters, shall be shunned as violative of human dignity, both within and without prisons. The indiscriminate resort to handcuffs when accused persons are taken to and from court and t


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top