ORDER 1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing, the arguments of R. Alagumani Advocate for the petitioner and of The Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the respondents the Court made the following order: The prayer in this Miscellaneous Petition is to direct the respondents not to put handcuff to the petitioner‘s husband, while transmtting the detenu from Madurai Central Prison to the Advisory Board, Chennai and to Courts and back to the Madurai Central Prison. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition, it is stated by the wife of the detenu - Boomi @ Boominathan that the police officials put handcuff to the detenu. Before handcuffing the detenu, no permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate was obtained and without any authority, the police officials handcuffed the detenu, which is in violation of the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the decision in Citizen for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and Others AIR 1996 SC 2193 : (1995) SCC (Cr) 600 : LNIND 1995 SC 602 : (1995) 2 MLJ 66 . 3. When the matter was posted on 28.3.2012, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to file counter affidavit regarding the said aspect. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, filed a counter affidavit, wherein in Paragraph Nos. 8 to 10, it is stated as follows: “8. The detenu Tr.Boomi @ Boominathan was produced on 15.3.2012 in the Sessions Court, for the committal of the case in C4 Thilagarthidal PS Cr. No. 2749 of 2011 under Section 392 read with 397, 506(ii) IPC involved by him. For which, the detenu was escorted to Madurai District Complex through the Madurai City Police Escort Team consisting of AR PC 2687 M. Nousnad Khan and AR PC 1505 S. Suresh. The detenu was handed over to the above police personnel on 15.3.2012 at 1000 hrs by the Prison Authorities. 9. It is kindly submitted that the police personnel deputed for escort duty, fearing the possibility of escape of accused, who is detained as ‘Goonda‘ and having bad antecedents and character was handcuffed and escorted to the District Court Complex, without any proper orders from the Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate. 10. It is respectfully admitted that the above detenu was escorted with handcuff without proper permission from the Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate.” 4. 10. It is respectfully admitted that the above detenu was escorted with handcuff without proper permission from the Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate.” 4. Since there is tacit admission in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City that the detenu was hand cuffed, we have directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to give instruction to the above said two Police Constables, i.e., AR PC 2667 M. Noushad Khan end AR PC 1505 S. Suresh, to appear before this Court. Accordingly, the above said two Police Constables appeared before this Court and submitted that without noticing the implication of law, they have handcuffed the detenu and they will not repeat the same in future, without prior permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. 5. The law on this aspect as to whether a person can be handcuffed without permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate was laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision. In the said judgment, in Paragraph Nos.16 to 22, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held thus: “16. We declare, direct and lay down a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner-convicted or under-trial-while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. 17. Where the police or the jail authorities have well grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate, Save in rare cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner. 18. 18. In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate and remand-judicial or non-judicial is given by the Magistrate the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand. 19. When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from a Magistrate, the person arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested. 20. Where a person is arrested ‘by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guidelines given by us in para above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already indicated by us. 21. We direct all ranks of police and prison authorities to meticulously obey the above-mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. 22. Copy of this judgment be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and to all the State and Union Territory Governments through Home Secretaries.” 6. On a perusal of the above judgment, it is evident that a direction was issued to all ranks of police and Prison Authorities to meticulously obey the above-mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court by any rank of Police Authority in the country or member of the jail establishment, shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971, apart from other penal consequences under law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that instead of initiating contempt proceedings against the said two Police Constables, they may be directed to pay compensation to the detenu. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that instead of initiating contempt proceedings against the said two Police Constables, they may be directed to pay compensation to the detenu. 8. The above said two Police Constables, i.e., AR PC 2687 M. Noushad Khan and AR PC 1505 S. Suresh, having accepted the act of handcuffing and pleaded for mercy and having regard to the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt proceedings against the above said two Police Constables. However, the detenu having been handcuffed, which is in violation of human rights, we are inclined to order compensation to the detenu, as suggested by the learned, counsel for the petitioner. The above said two Police Constables, i.e., AR PC 2687 M. Noushad Khan and AR PC 1505 S. Suresh, are also willing to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each (totally Rupees Ten Thousand) to the Wife of the detenu by today itself. 9. Recording the said submission made by the said two Police Constables, this Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of with a direction to AR PC 2687 M. Noushad Khan and AR PC 1505 S. Suresh to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each (totally Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation to the wife of the detenu today itself. Post this matter on 30.3.2012 for reporting compliance. 10. In view of the said order, we direct the respondents herein not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the said two Police Constables and the compensation amount to be paid by them shall not be entered in their Service Records. 11. At this juncture, we are painful to note the non-observance of the direction of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court by the Police Authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu regarding handcuffing. The learned Judicial Magistrates concerned must have a vigilant watch over this kind of handcuffing and human rights violation hereafter and if any such violation is noticed, appropriate action shall be taken forthwith, in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.