Handcuffing undertrials a ‘barbaric’ practice: Court

Another court had reportedly on December 5, 2012 passed an order to produce Shahid in handcuffs, after a constable who was escorting Shahid “got apprehensive” that Shahid had managed to take two rolls of tobacco from his relatives outside the court complex, “taking advantage of the crowd”. The prosecution had thereafter requested that the court pass an order to handcuff Shahid.

However, in his order, the judge said, “I am in respectful disagreement with the view taken by my learned predecessor court. Handcuffing is a very serious abrogation of human rights of a prisoner and cannot be allowed in the circumstances above.”

Citing a Supreme Court observation, the court said, “The routine resort to handcuffs and irons bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our goal of human dignity and social justice. And yet this unconstitutionality is heartlessly popular in many penitentiaries so much so a pertinent law must prescribe its use in any but the gravest situation….”

Further, the order, citing the Supreme Court observation, said, “Insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing. There are other measures whereby an escort can keep safe custody without the indignity and cruelty implicit in handcuffs or either iron contraptions… Further to handcuff is to punish humiliatingly and to vulgarise the viewers also. Iron straps are insult and pain writ large, animalising victim and keeper. Since there are other ways of ensuring security, it can be laid down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetter shall not be forced on the person of an undertrial ordinarily.”

“So it is that to be consistent with Articles 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge, not the routine regimen. If a close watch by armed policemen will do, then no handcuffs (are needed),” the court said.

In its order, the court said, “The escort is directed to immediately remove handcuffs from accused Ahmad Shahid which he does by taking handcuffs off accused Ahmad Shahid.”