Exploring The Extent To Which Handcuffs Can Be Used As A Means Of Restraint

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Recently, the Delhi Court rejected the plea to bring Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in handcuffs.
• The reason given was that they were not gangsters or previous convicts.
• They were not being produced physically hence there was no need to handcuff them.
• This article explores the extent to which handcuffs can be used as a means of restraint.
• The Delhi Prison Rules are silent about handcuffing and fettering prisoners.
• As per the Superintendent of Tihar Jail, producing an accused does not fall into the ambit of the jail administration.

INTRODUCTION

Quite recently, a Delhi Court has dismissed the plea for producing Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid on the grounds that they were high risk prisoners and had tried to aid undertrial prisoners in escaping. The basis behind dismissing this plea, as given by Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, was that the accused were not convicts or gangsters. Moreover, it seemed that the application was filed without any application of mind and was not needed as the accused were not to be produced physically due to the pandemic protocols being followed. As per the reply given by Additional DCP, Special Cell, no application had been filed requesting the accused to be presented while being handcuffed from the back. The cases being discussed here are State V. Umar Khalid and State V. Khalid Saifi. Although this controversy may seem to be simply related to handcuffing the accused, there is a lack of in-depth knowledge as to when it is permissible to handcuff a person and what the rights and remedies available to such a person.

RIGHTS AGAINST HANDCUFFING

There are certain human rights granted and made available to every person, even people who have been accused of a crime and are in the middle of the Police Investigation process. In the landmark Supreme Court case of Prem Shanker V. Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 SC 1535], handcuffing the accused while escorting them to the jail and the Court during trial processes has been disapproved. As stated in Article 14 and Article 19, there is no need to punish harshly and humiliatingly, or fetter a man’s limbs. The Right to Freedom of Movement is also applicable to a person in detention and is not supposed to be taken away by application of handcuffs. Maliciously misusing power to restrain a person can invoke the application of Section 220 if the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The sole objective of using handcuffs is to prevent the accused from escaping.

SECTION 220 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section 220 of the IPC states that whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES ON HANDCUFFING

Handcuffs are often misused for subjecting a prisoner or accused to punishment by humiliation or for easing out the duties of the escorting party to prevent escape. Herein, the Supreme Court has stated that handcuffing to prevent escape of the accused can be used when the person is violent and aggressive. Since police officers have the power vested in them to handcuff a person when required, the law also places significant retrain on this power to prevent misuse and arbitrary use. One such restriction is that handcuffs are not to be used in a routine fashion. Simply because a prisoner was involved in criminal cases is not a strong ground for restraining him with the use of handcuffs. The various rules and regulations pertaining to handcuffing an individual have been struck down as they were violating the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Handcuffs can be used when there is a possible threat of a prisoner escaping or if the prisoner is of a violent nature. In such an instance, the Court has to be made known about the reasons duly recorded for permitting the use of the same.

INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment recommends that measures should be taken to ensure to every prisoner the right to maintain a private life free from restrictions as many prisoners refused to go outside due to fear of being seen handcuffed by a police officer. The European Court of Human Rights added that the requirements of investigation do not justify the placement of limits on the physical integrity of the detained individuals. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 states that no person shall be subjected to torture; or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 10 of the same states that all persons who have been deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect.

IMPORTANT CASES

• SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [AIR 1978 SC 1675]: Held that handcuffs should not be used in a routine manner and Article 19 of the Constitution cannot be limited by the use of handcuffs and chains.
• PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA V DELHI ADMINISTRATION [AIR 1980 SC 1535]: Held that handcuffs are to be used only when a person is likely to commit suicide; is involed in a non-bailable offence; and is likely to attempt escape; is of violent and aggressive character. It was also stated that even orders from superiors were not a valid ground for handcuffing an individual.
• CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY V. STATE OF ASSAM [1995 SCC 743]: Held that indiscriminate use of handcuffs is inhuman, unreasonable and arbitrary. Relevant considerations for putting a prisoner in chains are ìcharacter, antecedents and propensities. Handcuffing without a Magistrate's permission is not permitted, except in rare circumstances.
• STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAVIKANT S PATIL [1991 SCC 373]: Held that handcuffing of an undertrial prisoner done in violation of Article 21 makes him entitled to compensation.
• SOUMEN BISWAS V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [W. P. No. 11851 of 2013]: Held that use of handcuffs justified only in cases where there is no reasonable way to prevent the prisoner’s escape in the given circumstances.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen above, there are more provisions against handcuffing an individual than those which openly permit the same. This is one of the main reasons why the plea to produce Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in handcuffs was rejected. Such strong measures against the use of handcuffs as a restraint against convicts prevents the arbitrary use of law and the power bestowed by it. Handcuffing, and when considered in a broader international aspect, any physical restraint upon a person is looked upon as an infringement upon human rights and hence, should be avoided at all costs, unless circumstances are such that there is no other way left.