The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial orders before handcuffing a detenu, as outlined by the Supreme Court, and the consequences of non-compliance.

1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their men or whomsoever acting on their behalf from bringing petitioners owner Ahamed Ali who is detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and confined in Central Jail, Coimbatore with handcuffs and chain as and when he has to be produced before the Advisory Board, High Court, Madras.

3. The petitioner is working as Clerk under one Ahamed Ali, who is running Oil Store at Bhavani. Respondents 2 and 3 registered cases against the said Ahamed Ali under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and he was detained under custody on 02.02.2010 under the Act and now he is confined in Central Jail, Coimbatore.

4. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that whenever the respondents took his owner to produce before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode, Judicial Magistrate-II, Namakkal and Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem and also before the Advisory Board, High Court, Madras, they use handcuffs along with chain in the body of the said Ahamed Ali and other accused persons. The said action of the respondents in handcuffing and chaining the said persons is in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Citizen for Democracy through its President Vs. State of Assam and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2193: (1995) 3 SCC 743. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above said prayer.

5. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore filed a counter affidavit on 12.2.2010. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

3. " it is submitted that the person namely Bhavani Bai @ Ahamed Ali S/o Naina Mohamd mentioned in the affidavit by the petitioner was remanded in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Erode Cr.No.61/10 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 307 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode on 3.2.2010 and admitted in this prison as a remand Prisoner on the same day itself. Later he was detained under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (Act 7 of 1980) w.e.f. 8.2.2010 as per the detention order issued by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Erode in C.No.1/PBMMSEC ACT/2010 (M3) dated 7.2.2010 and now he is confined in this prison as a black marketing detenu.

4. Regarding the averments in paragraph Nos.3 to 8, it is submitted that the above said detenu has to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode on 17.2.2010 through video conferencing system for hearing as per the remand warrant entries. He will be produced before the Chairman, State Advisory Board, High Court, Madras for hearing in person on the date which will be intimated by the Government. Handcuffing of prisoners while sending to courts, out hospitals etc. under the police escort is decided by the police only. The Prison Department cannot interfere in that aspect. However, as per rule No.831(1) of Tamil Nadu Prison rules 1983 Under-trial prisoners shall not be normally handcuffed except:-

(a) Prisoner involved in serious and heinous offences:

(b) Prisoners having notorious or dangerous background:

(c) Violent, aggressive and refractory prisoners; and

(d) Prisoners who have previously escaped or are suspected of having escape risks.

The rule No.831(2) of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983 says that "Handcuffing of under-trial prisoners may be done at the discretion of the officer in charge of police escort"

The rule No.832(4) says that "It is for the police to decide whether such prisoner shall be handcuffed or not"

It is submitted that the 1st respondent never use handcuff inside the prison on the detenu. However, it is fo