Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. C. AGRAWAL AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
RE : M. P. DWIVEDI AND OTHERS, CONTEMNERS.
VERSUS
IN RE : M. P. DWIVEDI AND OTHERS, CONTEMNERS.
Suo Motu Contempt Petn. No. 10 of 1996, In Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 239 of 1993,
Decided on : 11-1-1996.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 231 to 254 - Sections 302 to 304 - Sections 307 and 308 - Section 311 - Section 395 - Section 148 – Sangath – Upliftment Of Tribal People - Sangath is a registered trade union of tribals of Alirajpur Tehsil in District Jhabua of State of Madhya Pradesh - It started functioning and has been working for upliftment of tribals in region - It is opposed to construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on river Narmada on ground that construction of Dam would be prejudicial to interest of tribals residing in catchment area of Dam since their lands would be submerged in water and they would be displaced - Members of Sangath have been agitating against construction of Dam - In connection with said agitation, members of Sangath were arrested by police authorities on various dates in connection with criminal cases registered against them – Held, It appears that contemner was completely insensitive about serious violations of human rights of undertrial prisoners in matter of their handcuffing in as much as when prisoners were produced before him in Court in handcuffs, he did not think it necessary to take any action for removal of handcuffs or against escort party for bringing them to Court in handcuffs and taking them away in handcuffs without his authorization - This is a serious lapse on part of contemner in discharge of his duties as a judicial officer who is expected to ensure that basic human rights of citizens are not violated - Keeping in view that contemner is a young judicial officer, court refrain from imposing punishment on him - Court, however, record our strong disapproval of his conduct and direct that a note of this disapproval by this Court shall be kept in personal file of contemner - Court also feel that judicial officers should be made aware from time to time of law laid down by this Court and High Court, more especially in connection with protection of basic human rights of people and, for that purpose, short refresher courses may be conducted at regular intervals so that judicial officers are made aware about developments in law in field – Appeal Disposed Of.
JUDGEMENT
S. C. Agrawal, J.:- These contempt proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the order dated June 4, 1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 239 of 1993, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The said order dated June 4, 1993 for issuing notices for contempt against the contemners was passed in the following circumstances.
2. Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sangath'), is a registered trade union of tribals of Alirajpur Tehsil in District Jhabua of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It started functioning in October 1985 and has been working for the upliftment of the tribals in the region. It is opposed to the construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on river Narmada on the ground that the construction of the Dam would be prejudicial to the interest of the tribals residing in the catchment area of the Dam since their lands would be submerged in water and they would be displaced. The members of the Sangath have been agitating against the construction of the Dam. In connection with the said agitation, the members of the Sangath were arrested by the police authorities on various dates in connection with criminal cases registered against them and after their arrest, the arrested persons were handcuffed while being taken from jail to the Court and from Court to jail or from jail/Court to civil hospital and back to jail/Court. On some occasions they were paraded while handcuffed through the streets of Alirajpur. In the writ petition, mention is made of the following ncidents of handcuffing of under trial prisoners:
"17-11-92 -- Khemla Aujanharia was handcuffed and paraded in Alirajpur.
and
19-11-92
2-2-93 -- Revji was handcuffed and paraded in Alirajpur
3-2-93 -- Ravi Hemadri, Amit Bhatnagar, Khajan, Tilia, Vesta, Bava Kaharia,Bamita were handcuffed and taken from the police station to hospital and back, and from Court to the police station and back.
3-2-93 -- Ram Singh and Vanjara were handcuffed and taken from Alirajpur Police Station to Sondwa Police Station.
5-2-93 -- Ram Singh and Vanjara were handcuffed and paraded on the streets of Alirajpur.
7-2-93 -- Rahul Ram and Ashvini Chhatre were handcuffed and paraded on the streets of Alirapur and were taken in a truck to Sondwa.
8-2-93 -- All the above, as well as Rahul Ram and Ashwini Chhatre were handcuffed and taken into the hospital. Handcuffs were removed during the examination. They were handcuffed again and taken to Court and then to police station, then back to Court.
8-2-93 -- Motla and Punja were taken through Alirajpur in handcuffs.
24-2-93 -- Rahul Banerjee was handcuffed and paraded in Alirajpur.
25-2-93 -- Rahul Banerjee produced before the Magistrate in handcuffs (Noted by JMFC, Alirajpur in his order)".
3. The fact about the handcuffing of these aforementioned persons on the dates referred to above was not disputed by the respondents in the said writ petition. Having regard to the decision of the Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCR 855 : (AIR 1980 SC 1535); Sunil Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 3 SCC 119, and Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commr. of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 2 SCR 495 : (AIR 1972 SC 2466), this Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for taking action for contempt of Court against persons responsible for the aforementioned acts of handcuffing of under trial prisoners. A direction was, therefore, given by order dated June 4, 1993 to issue notice to the contemners to show cause why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of this Court.
4. In response to the said notice, affidavits have been filed by the aforementioned contemners. Before we deal with the explanation offered by the contemners, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations which prescribes as follows:
"465. Hand-cuffs when Used - Hand cuffs shall be used only if they are necessary.
The following instructions regulate
