Human Rights Violations of Prisoners and Arrested Persons in India

Did you know that laws in India do not permit handcuffing of a prisoner unless the police suspects the prisoner of attempting an escape? A majority of people do not know that the Supreme Court has criticized handcuffing as inhuman, unreasonable and arbitrary.  Despite this clear stand on handcuffing, you may be surprised to find that a majority of prisoners in India continue to be handcuffed.

Sometimes, even suspects in India who are taken for questioning to a police station are handcuffed. Human rights violations of prisoners and arrested persons in India continue, because we, as citizens, are not fully aware of our rights in relating to arrest and if we are, we hesitate to assert our rights because we fear the police.

Human Rights Violations of Indian Prisoners

Suppose you, as an educated person, staged a dharna for a public cause and got remanded to judicial custody. What typically happens thereafter is that you will be taken to court from jail and back to jail from court. It is understood that you are not likely to escape from jail because you believe in standing up boldly for a public cause and you are unlikely to flee from jail. Is there a reasonable need for the cops to handcuff you? Reasonably, the answer is no.  These are the kind of examples of human rights violations that continue to happen around us.

This is exactly what happened in the case, Sunil Gupta v State of Maharashtra, (1990) 3 SCC 119. Handcuffing the petitioners who are educated and not likely to flee from jail was considered unjust and unreasonable by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the government to ensure that appropriate action is taken against the ‘escorting party,’ namely the cops, for handcuffing the petitioners.

Human Rights Violations of Arrested Persons

There are many cases relating to human rights violations of arrested persons  in India.  In a landmark case, Citizens for Democracy v State of Assam, (1995) 3 SCC 743, it was held that when a person is arrested based on a warrant of arrest that is issued by a Magistrate, the police shall not handcuff the said person unless the Magistrate has ordered handcuffing. It was also held that when the police arrest a person without a warrant, the person maybe handcuffed in consonance with the Supreme Court guidelines. However, once he is produced before the Magistrate, he cannot be chained or handcuffed without the orders of the Magistrate.

In the same case, the Supreme Court had observed that handcuffing and chaining in public, “degrades and puts to shame finer sensibilities, and is a slur on our culture.” It was further observed that handcuffing should be shunned as violative of human dignity.