Directions issued by the Court :- The routine handcuffing of the prisoners when taken to and from Court shall be stopped forthwith. It might be resorted to only in cases where the authority responsible for the prisoners custody is satisfied that there is a danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by breaking out of the police control and that by adding to the escort party or other strategy he cannot be kept under control. In cases where handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. It should also inform the Court of the circumstances in which the decision for handcuffing the prisoner had to be taken by him. The Magistrate before whom the accused are produced shall interro­gate the prisoner, in every case whether he has been subjected to handcuffs and if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain his action forthwith. No Magistrate shall authorise detention of any person in custody unless such person is produced before him. The prevailing practice of passing orders of remand on custody warrants mechanically without production of the accused shall be stopped forthwith. ORDER 28. 1. 91-On 22nd January, 1991 at 2 P. M. one of us (Dr. Saraf, J) accompanied by Shri Lalrokhuma Pachuau, Superintendent of Police, Aizawl visited the Central Jail. Aizawl. Though the visit was in connection with some allegations received by the High Court in regard to detention of persons as Non Criminal Lunatics, certain very distressing facts came to notice in course of meeting the Under Trial Prisoners (shortly 'U. T. Ps.') and discussion with the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl. There is a large number of U.T. Ps. in the Jail. The total number of such prisoners as on the date of inspection (22. 1. 91) was 310. 14 of them are for more than 2 years, 21 for more than 1 year, 29 for more than 6 months, 100 for more than 3 months, and 133 for more than one month. Some of the U. T. Ps. complained that most of them are never taken to the Court and even those who are taken, often not produced before the Magistrate. Remand orders are passed by the Magistrates mechanically without the presence of the prisoner. This was a very shocking revelation which called for careful scrutiny. Some of the U. T. Ps. complained that most of them are never taken to the Court and even those who are taken, often not produced before the Magistrate. Remand orders are passed by the Magistrates mechanically without the presence of the prisoner. This was a very shocking revelation which called for careful scrutiny. But this task was made easier by the Special Superintendent of Jail who fairly conceded that the complaint was correct. Dr. Saraf, J. also inspected the register named "Production of U.T.Ps and Convicts Court Register" with effect from 11.1.91. The register-also bears testimony of the complaint. The figures of the U. T. Ps. who were required to be produced before the Magistrate and who were taken to the Court for such production during the period 1.1.91 to 23.1.91 furnished by the Special Superintendent of Jail arc as below : ' ' Date Total UTPs to Total UTPs Date Total UTPs to Total UTPs be produced, physically sent be produced, physically sent to the Court. to the Court. 2. 1.91 38 NiL 15.1.91 15 13 3.1.91 27 Nil 16.1.91 52 14 4. 1. 91 63 14 17. 1.91 46 14 7.1.91 32 13 18.1.91 49 13 1.91 17 11 21. 1.91 24 14 1.91 38 14 22. 1.91 23 14 10. 1.91 55 14 23. 1.91 49 14 14.1.91 45 13 This shows that the complaint of the U.T.Ps. is correct. In most of the cases only custody warrants are taken to the Court not the prisoner and remand orders are passed mechanically by the Magistrate concerned. It could not be ascertained as to how many of the U.T.Ps. taken to the Court were actually produced before the Magistrate. It was, however, revealed that as the Magistrate often remains busy with administrative works, he hardly gets time to enable production of the U.T.Ps. physically even if they are taken to Court. The further complaint that even few U.T.Ps. taken to Court are often not produced before the Magistrate also appeared to have substance. The practice appears to be to produce only the custody warrants before the Magistrate who put his signature without bothering for and/or insisting upon production of the U.T.Ps. This is a very serious state of affairs. We see a total disregard by the authorities concerned as well as the safeguards given to the citizen under the law and the Constitution. The practice appears to be to produce only the custody warrants before the Magistrate who put his signature without bothering for and/or insisting upon production of the U.T.Ps. This is a very serious state of affairs. We see a total disregard by the authorities concerned as well as the safeguards given to the citizen under the law and the Constitution. Another shocking revelation was the prevailing practice of routine handcuffing of U.T.Ps., while being taken to the Court for production before the Magistrate. This fact was confirmed by the Special Superintendent of the Jail as well as by the Superintendent of Police. It was stated that such handcuffing is resorted to for convenience of the escort party. We are surprised, shocked and grieved to note that such practice, which had long back been disapproved - rather frowned upon by the Supreme Court, still prevails in the State of Mizoram. It is violative of Articles 14 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. All those responsible for this stale of affairs are accountable for their action. Equally distressing and shocking is the apathy of the Magistrates vested with judicial powers in Mizoram towards such illegal and de-humanising practice of routine handcuffing of U.T.Ps. It appears that none of the legal and constitutional requirements and the mandates of the Supreme Court are being followed in the State of Mizoram by the authorities concerned and the Magistrates vested with judicial powers. This is a very serious situation which cannot be overlooked. Those responsible for such state of affairs are answerable to the Court and if found at fault, might be liable in law. We also notice that about six months back on 19.7.1990 two of the Hon'ble Judges (Y. I. Singh and W. A. Shishak, JJ) visited the Central Jail in connection with some public interest litigation. It was noticed that some U.T.Ps were in jail custody without remand orders being passed by the competent authorities for many months. It was noticed that some U.T.Ps. involved in petty offences like theft, mischief etc. were in custody even for more than a year so, though the maximum sentence in their cases, even if found guilty, would not be more than six months. Certain other illegalities were also noticed. The authorities concerned were directed to take remedial action in the matter. But nothing seems to have been done in this regard. were in custody even for more than a year so, though the maximum sentence in their cases, even if found guilty, would not be more than six months. Certain other illegalities were also noticed. The authorities concerned were directed to take remedial action in the matter. But nothing seems to have been done in this regard. The aforesaid state of affairs in the matter of routine handcuffing of U.T.Ps. and mechanical remand to jail custody by the Magistrates without physical production of the prisoner has shocked our judicial conscience, it is very disturbing and pauses a threat to the very existence of the rule of law. We, therefore, take suo motu notice of the same and propose to consider the same and issue necessary directions in the matter in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the matter is very serious and urgent and the state of affairs, as it exists today, cannot be allowed to continue even for a - day, we request the learned Advocate General, Mizoram to ask the concerned authorities, including the Magistrates who have been signing the remand orders on the custody warrants without production of the U.T.Ps. the Inspector General of Police, the District Magistrate, the Special Superintendent of Central Jail and the officers concerned in charge of escort party who are responsible for routine handcuffing of the U. T. Ps. to appear before this Court tomorrow, the 29th January, 1991 at 10-30 A. M. and place their case and view points in the matter to enable this Court to consider the same before passing any interim order. In view of the public importance of this matter which involves the life and liberty of citizens, we think it proper also to permit any social or voluntary organisation interested in the matter to appear before the Court and have its say. This matter may be put up for orders tomorrow when all concerned including any person or organisation, who may like to have its say in the matter, shall be heard. The learned Advocate General may also advise the appropriate depart­ment of the Government to give proper publicity to this order through the media or otherwise to enable all concerned to participate in the proceedings tomorrow and assist the Court, Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned Advocate General. The learned Advocate General may also advise the appropriate depart­ment of the Government to give proper publicity to this order through the media or otherwise to enable all concerned to participate in the proceedings tomorrow and assist the Court, Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned Advocate General. 29.1.91 -In pursuance to the order passed by us yesterday, (1) Mr. Khenglawt, D.I.G. (CID), (2) Mr. Rokiuma, S.P., (3) Mr. Chama, Addl. S.P. (Prosecution), (4) Mr. Saithanga, D.S.P. (Prosecution), (5) Mr. Lalmawia A.D.M., (6) Mr.K.Hawla, 1st Class Magistrate, (7) Mr. Sanghnuna, I.G. (Prisons) and (8) Mr. Rodi sga, Jail Superintendent appeared today before the Court. Mr. Lalmawia A.D.M. (A) concedes that the facts, stated in the preliminary order passed by the Court yesterday are correct. It is also fairly conceded that remand order are passed without production of the under trial prisoners. He, however tries to justify this action on the ground of lack of transport on account of which it is not possible for the jail authorities to produce a large number of persons personally before the Court. He is, however, fair to admit that such practice is not in accordance with law. He also wants to file written statement and prays for 7 (seven) days' time for the same. Mr. Saithaoga, DSP (Prosecution) (A) also admits the factual statements contained in the order of this Court passed yesterday. He frankly states that the custody warrants fire produced by the Inspector before the Magistrate in a routine manner and orders are passed in the very same manner by the concerned A.D.C. He also concedes that such practice is not in consonance with the law. He also wants 1 (one) week's time to file detailed statement in writing. The I. G. (Prisons) Mr.B. Sanghnuna, who also appears before the Court, states that he has recently joined as I.G. Prisons. He agrees with the observations of the Court in the preliminary order. He states that he is going to hold a joint meeting soon of all concerned depart­ments to take appropriate steps in the matter. We appreciate the frankness with which the aforesaid officials have admitted the existing state of affairs. We are, however, not happy to note the absence of the District Magistrate who was specifically instructed by us through the Advocate General to be present today to assist the Court in the mattes. We appreciate the frankness with which the aforesaid officials have admitted the existing state of affairs. We are, however, not happy to note the absence of the District Magistrate who was specifically instructed by us through the Advocate General to be present today to assist the Court in the mattes. The Advocate General informed that due intimation was given to her but she has neither turned up nor left any intimation with him. The A.D.M. (A) who is present in the Court, however informed that the District Magistrate is busy with some other important administrative works as such, she could not attend the Court today. We wish the District Magistrate have realised the gravity and made herself available when a matter of such vital importance involving the life and liberty of the citizens is being taken up. We however, direct the District Magistrate to file her written statement in the matter within 7 (seven) days from today. All other parties are also given 7 (seven) days' time to file written statement. In view of the seriousness of the matter and also in view of the factual information received by us and contained in our yesterday's order and fairly conceded by all authorities concerned who are present in the Court today, we feel that the existing state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue even for a day. We, therefore, issue the following directions ;- The routine handcuffing of the prisoners when taken to and from Court shall be stopped forthwith. It might be resorted to only in cases where the authority responsible for the prisoners' custody is satisfied that there is a danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by breaking out of the police control and that by adding to the escort party or other strategy he cannot be kept under control. Such decision should be taken by the escorting authority in each individual case. In cases where handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. It should also inform the Court of the circumstances in which the decision for handcuffing the prisoner had ,to be taken by him. If the Court is not satisfied with the justification so shown, it may direct the handcuffs to be put off and in that event, the escorting authority shall act accordingly. 4. It should also inform the Court of the circumstances in which the decision for handcuffing the prisoner had ,to be taken by him. If the Court is not satisfied with the justification so shown, it may direct the handcuffs to be put off and in that event, the escorting authority shall act accordingly. 4. The Magistrate before whom the accused are produced shall interrogate the prisoner, in every case whether he has been subjected to handcuffs and if be has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain his action forthwith. 5. No Magistrate shall authorise detention of any person in custody unless such person is produced before him. The prevailing practice of passing orders of remand on custody warrants mechanically without production of the accused shall be stopped forthwith. The authorities concerned shall make all necessary arrangements for taking the prisoners to Court for production before the Magistrate. The order of remand in all cases shall be passed only on considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial application of mind. We mandate all concerned to follow henceforth the aforesaid directions most scrupulously. We are really sorry that we are required to issue the aforesaid direction even after more than a decade of the echo-making pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject. We, hope that the authorities concerned shall realise the seriousness of the matter and shall not commit any further violation of the legal and constitutional rights of the citizens in future. The learned Advocate General is requested to assist the Court in this case. He is also requested to ensure that the aforesaid directions are given widest publicity so that the citizens may be aware of their rights and, in the event of any violation, bring the matter to the notice of the Court for appropriate action. This matter may be placed for further orders after 2 (two) weeks after receipt of the written statements from the various authorities and persons concerned.