The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the use of handcuffs on under-trial prisoners, emphasizing the inhumane and improper practice of handcuffing and the responsibility of police authorities and judicial officers in preventing misuse of handcuffs.

T.S.Thakur, J.

1. This petition.has been filed.in Public Interest. It seeks a mandamus directing the police authorities not to handcuff or put fetters on the under-trials when they are brought to the Courts or are taken out of jail for any other purpose, except with the permission of the concerned Court/Magistrate. It also prays for a direction to the Courts/Magistrates to verify from the under-trials produced before them whether they have been subjected to handcuffs or the like and if so to command the concerned officers to initiate action against those responsible for doing so.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The legal position regarding use of handcuffs on under-trial prisoners stands authoritatively settled by a long-line of decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court and different High Courts in the country. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1978]4 SCC 494 and Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration [1980J3 SCC 526 have examined at length the question relating to the legality of handcuffing and found that the same in inhumane, unreasonable and harsh. The Apex Court has, in the said decisions, issued several directions to the police authorities as also to the Courts dealing with under-trial prisoners with a view to prevent handcuffing and declared that freedom from handcuff is the rule and handcuffing an exception. In Prem Shankar Shuklas case [supra], the Honble Supreme Court observed :-

"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 jail warder - that the rule regarding a prisoner to transit between prison house and course 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 hand- cuffs 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".

3. The above decision was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 372 : [1997]1 SCC 416 wherein their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have summed up the legal position as under:-

"We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :-

[1] The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

[2] That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

[3] A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

[4] The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or rela