Judgment :- Joymalya Bagchi, J. More than three decades ago the apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1980 SC 1535 ) declared that handcuffing of an under trial prisoner or keeping him in prison fetters/chains is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and thereby unconstitutional. In spite of such equivocal pronouncement, an ailing under trial/student leader was chained to his hospital bed at North Bengal Medical College in a distressing display of apathy to our constitutional ethos and commitment to human rights jurisprudence. The factual matrix as portrayed in the writ petition is that a student leader, namely Santosh Sahani, was booked by the police on 10th April, 2013 for allegedly being a member of an unlawful assembly which had a skirmish with the law enforcement agencies in the course of a public demonstration. Admittedly, Santosh Sahani does not have any criminal antecedent. After being arrested, Santosh Sahani was remanded to judicial custody and was kept at Siliguri Special Correctional Home. In the night of 14.04.2013, Santosh complained of uneasiness and was shifted to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Siliguri on 15.04.2013. It has been alleged that on 16th April, 2013 Santosh Sahani was kept chained to the hospital bed for about 40 hours. It has also been alleged that during the said period he was not provided basic necessities like food, water and was not even allowed to go to the toilet. It has been complained that such action is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In this backdrop, the petitioner, a public spirited advocate, has prayed for a direction upon respondent authorities to act strictly in accordance with law, particularly, in the matter of use of chains or handcuffs on arrested persons and to issue directions upon respondent authorities to follow the guidelines o f the Supreme Court in the matter of handcuffing and/or chaining. A direction for judicial enquiry into the alleged incident has also been prayed. It has been further prayed that adequate compensation be paid to Santosh Sahani for being chained in the hospital during judicial custody. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State it appears that respondent authorities, in fact, admitted that Santosh Sahani was chained in the hospital. A direction for judicial enquiry into the alleged incident has also been prayed. It has been further prayed that adequate compensation be paid to Santosh Sahani for being chained in the hospital during judicial custody. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State it appears that respondent authorities, in fact, admitted that Santosh Sahani was chained in the hospital. The authorities have, however, disputed the period for which the under trial prisoner was chained, which according to them was for a “very brief time” and they have sought to justify for such heinous act on the excuse of purported security considerations. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is set out herein below: “As per the statement given by the correctional home guard Debashis Roy concerning at around 11 a.m. of 16.04.2013 as mob gathered in and around the male medical ward-II which is open and insecure, the shouting of whose made the guard (untrained to guard inmates in public place on medical emergency) felt extremely insecure in that situation. The handcuffing was exercised over the inmate patient to the bed under a compelling situation in good faith for only a very brief time by the correctional guard Debashis Roy to secure the life of the inmate patient from others and to secure the life of the inmate patient also from self injury and to restrain the possible escape of the inmate patient with the help of the gathered mob.” It has been averred that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the erring officers, namely, Debashis Roy, who was deputed to guard the under trial prisoner, and T.R. Bhutia, the Superintendent of the concerned correctional home, who were instrumental in handcuffing Santosh Sahani. It has further been pleaded in the affidavit that there were instances of escaping of under trial prisoners from North Bengal Medical College and Hospital in the recent past which necessitated such action. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of chaining Santosh Sahani in the hospital during judicial custody has been admitted. Justification for such act of chaining as disclosed in the affidavit of the State is not convincing and is violative to the law declared by the apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR (1980) SC 1535, Sunil Gupta & Ors. Vs. Justification for such act of chaining as disclosed in the affidavit of the State is not convincing and is violative to the law declared by the apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR (1980) SC 1535, Sunil Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 119 , Citizen for Democracy through its President Vs. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2193 . He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and adequate compensation will be paid to the victim. He also relied on D.K. Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 in support of his contention. Learned counsel appearing for the State, while admitting the fact of chaining of the under trial prisoner, strenuously argued that circumstances necessitated such an act inasmuch as a mob had gathered around the medical ward and there was a chance of his escape. He referred to various paragraphs in Prem Shankar Shukla’s judgment in support of his contention that under compelling circumstances handcuffing was justified. In Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535 , a three Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the validity of Rule 6.22 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which laid down provisions for handcuffing of special category prisoners. While declaring such provision to be unconstitutional, the apex Court observed as follow: “ 20. This collection of handcuff law must meet the demands of Arts. 14, 19 and 21. In the Sobraj case the imposition of bar fetters on B, a prisoner was subjected to constitutional scrutiny by this Court. Likewise, irons forced on under-trials in transit must conform to the humane imperatives of the triple articles. Official cruelty, sans constitutionality, degenerates into criminality. Rules, Standing orders, Instructions and Circulars must bow before Part III of the Constitution. So the first task is to assess the limits set by these articles.” The apex Court thereafter laid down the rare exceptions to the rule against handcuffing in the following words:- “25. The only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons-an extreme measure-is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape, in the given circumstances. Securing the prisoner being a necessity of judicial trial, the State must take steps in this behalf. The only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons-an extreme measure-is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape, in the given circumstances. Securing the prisoner being a necessity of judicial trial, the State must take steps in this behalf. But even here, the policeman’s easy assumption or scary apprehension or subjective satisfaction of likely escape if fetters are not fitted on the prisoner is not enough. The heavy deprivation of personal liberty must be justifiable as reasonable restriction in the circumstances. Ignominy, inhumanity and affliction, implicit in chains and shackles are permissible, as not unreasonable, only if every other less cruel means is fraught with risks or beyond availability. So it is that to be consistent with Arts. 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge, not the routine regimen. If a few more guards will suffice, then no handcuffs. If a close watch by armed policemen will do, then no handcuffs. If alternative measures may be provided, then no iron bondage. This is the legal norm. 26. Functional compulsions of security must reach that dismal degree that no alternative will work except manacles. We must realise that our Fundamental Rights are heavily loaded in favour of-personal liberty even in prison, and so, the traditional approaches without reverence for the worth of the human person are obsolete, although they die hard. Discipline can be exaggerated by prison keepers; dangerousness can be physically worked up by escorts and sadistic disposition, where higher awareness of constitutional rights is absent, may overpower the values of dignity and humanity. We regret to observe that cruel and unusual treatment has an unhappy appeal to jail keepers and escorting officers, which must be countered by strict directions to keep to the parameters of the constitution. The conclusion flowing from these considerations is that there must first be well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that the prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of custody or play the vanishing trick. The belief in this behalf must be based on antecedents which must be recorded and proneness to violence must be authentic. Vague surmises or general averments that the under trial is a crook or desperado, rowdy or maniac, cannot suffice. The belief in this behalf must be based on antecedents which must be recorded and proneness to violence must be authentic. Vague surmises or general averments that the under trial is a crook or desperado, rowdy or maniac, cannot suffice. In short, save in rare cases of concrete proof readily available of the dangerousness of the prisoner in transit-the onus of proof of which is on him who puts the person under irons-the police escort will be committing personal assault or mayhem if he handcuffs or fetters his charge. It is disgusting to see the mechanical way in which callous policemen, cavalier fashion ,handcuff prisoner in their charge, indifferently keeping them company assured by the thought that the detainee is under ’iron’ restraint. 27. Even orders of superiors are no valid justification as constitutional rights cannot be kept in suspense by superior orders, unless there is material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable mind that dangerous and desperate is the prisoner who is being transported and further that by adding to the escort party or other strategy he cannot be kept under control. It is hard to imagine such situations. We must repeat that it is unconscionable, indeed, outrageous, to make the strange classification between better class prisoners and ordinary prisoners in the matter of handcuffing. This elitist concept has no basis except that on the assumption the ordinary Indian is a sub-citizen and freedoms under Part III of the constitution are the privilege of the upper sector of society. 28. We must clarify a few other facets, in the light of Police Standing orders. Merely because a person is charged with a grave offence he cannot be handcuffed, He may be very quiet, well-behaved, docile or even timid. Merely because the offence is serious, the inference of escape proneness or desperate character does not follow. Many other conditions mentioned in the Police Manual are totally incongruous with what we have stated above and must fall as unlawful. Tangible testimony, documentary or other, or desperate behaviour, geared to making good his escaped alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and fettering, and even this may be avoided by increasing the strength of the escorts or taking the prisoners in well protected vans. Tangible testimony, documentary or other, or desperate behaviour, geared to making good his escaped alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and fettering, and even this may be avoided by increasing the strength of the escorts or taking the prisoners in well protected vans. It is heartening to note that in some States in this country no handcuffing is done at all, save in rare cases, when taking under-trials to courts and the scary impression that unless the person is confined in irons he will run away is a convenient myth. 29. Some increase in the number of escorts, arming them if necessary, special training for escort police, transport of prisoners in protected vehicles, are easily available alternatives and, in fact, are adopted in some States in the country where handcuffing is virtually abolished, e.g. Tamil Nadu. 30. Even in cases where, in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. Otherwise, under Art. 21 the procedure will be unfair and bad in law. Nor will mere recording the reasons do, as that can be a mechanical process mindlessly made. The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval. Otherwise, there is no control over possible arbitrariness in applying handcuffs and fetters. The minions of the police establishment must make good their security recipes by getting judicial approval. And, once the court directs that handcuffs shall be off no escorting authority can overrule judicial direction. This is implicit in Art. 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the very procedure which authorises stringent deprivation of life and liberty. The ratio in Maneka Gandhi’s case and Sunil Batra’s ease (supra), read in its proper light, leads us to this conclusion.” Similar view against handcuffing has been expressed in Sunil Gupta & Ors. Vs. This is implicit in Art. 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the very procedure which authorises stringent deprivation of life and liberty. The ratio in Maneka Gandhi’s case and Sunil Batra’s ease (supra), read in its proper light, leads us to this conclusion.” Similar view against handcuffing has been expressed in Sunil Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 119 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is most painful to note that the petitioners 1 and 2 who staged a ‘dharna’ for public cause and voluntarily submitted themselves for arrest and who had no tendency to escape had been subjected to humiliation by being handcuffed which act of the escort party is against all norms of decency and which is in utter violation of the principle underlying Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So we strongly condemn this kind of conduct of the escort party arbitrarily and unreasonably humiliating the citizens of the country with obvious motive of pleasing ‘someone’. From the discussion made above, we have no compunction in arriving at a conclusion that in the present case, the escort party without any jurisdiction had handcuffed the petitioners on April 22, 1989 on both occasions i.e. when taking the petitioners 1 and 2 from the prison to the court and then from the court to the prison. Hence, we direct the Government of Madhya Pradesh to take appropriate action against the erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing the petitioners 1 and 2 on April 22, 1989 in accordance with law.” In Citizen for Democracy through its President Vs. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2193 the Supreme Court crystallized the law against handcuffing as follows: “3. The law declared by this Court in Shukla’s case and Batra’s case is a mandate under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India and all concerned are bound to obey the same. We are constrained to say that the guidelines laid down by this Court and the directions issued repeatedly regarding handcuffing of under-trials and convicts are not being followed by the police, jail authorities and even by the subordinate judiciary. We are constrained to say that the guidelines laid down by this Court and the directions issued repeatedly regarding handcuffing of under-trials and convicts are not being followed by the police, jail authorities and even by the subordinate judiciary. We make it clear that the law laid down by this Court in the above said two judgments and the directions issued by us are binding on all concerned and any violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law.” “14. This Court in Batra’s case and Shukla’s case elaborately dealt with the extreme situation when the police and jail authorities can resort to handcuffing of the prisoners inside and outside the jail. It is a pity that the authorities have miserably failed to follow the law laid down by this Court in the matter of handcuffing of prisoners. The directions given by this Court are not being followed and are being treated as a pious declaration. We take judicial notice of the fact that the police and the jail authorities are even now using handcuffs and other fetters indiscriminately and without any justification. It has, therefore, become necessary to give binding directions and enforce the same meticulously.” It is, therefore, clear that handcuffing of a under trial prisoner is not only unconstitutional but a grave act of deprivation of dignity to an individual resulting in infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the case, it is admitted that the under trial prisoner Santosh Sahani, a student leader, who had no criminal antecedents was put on iron fetters while lying ill in the hospital bed. The reason which has been canvassed as an excuse for putting Santosh in chains in the hospital bed is the likelihood of his escape from the hospital as a mob had gathered around the hospital and that there was also a chance of self-inflicted injury. No records have been placed before us evidencing contemporaneous endorsement of such reasons or any permission from the judicial authorities in that regard. It has also been urged that such chaining may be attributable to the lack of knowledge on the part of the law enforcement officials who were entrusted with the duty of guarding the under trial prisoner, howsoever flimsy it may be. It has also been urged that such chaining may be attributable to the lack of knowledge on the part of the law enforcement officials who were entrusted with the duty of guarding the under trial prisoner, howsoever flimsy it may be. The aforesaid reasons as canvassed by the respondent State falls for below the strict standard laid down by the apex Court as rare exceptions to the rule against handcuffing. It is not a case where the under trial prisoner was a dreaded criminal with propensity of violence or abscondence. No concrete proof of such proclivity could be established by the respondent State. On the other hand, on the specious excuse that a large mob had gathered around the hospital, the under trial prisoner was chained. Learned counsel for the State strenuously sought to justify such action as the only alternative to protect the under trial prisoner and/or to pre vent his escape. Such agreement must meet its waterloo in the emphatic negation of such theory by the apex Court in Citizen for Democracy (supra), as follows:- “15. We have elaborately narrated the facts of the present case. We are of the view that there is no basis whatsoever for drawing an inference that the seven detenus who were lodged inside the ward of a hospital were likely to escape from custody. The antecedents of the detenus are not known. There is nothing on the record to show that they are prone to violence. General averments that the detenus are hard-core activists of ULFA and that they are accused of terrorists and disruptive activities, murder, extortion, holding and smuggling of arms and ammunition are not sufficient to place them under fetters and ropes while lodged in a closed ward of the hospital aspatients. Security guards were posted outside the ward. It is not disputed that while in jail the detenus were not handcuffed. They cannot be in a worst condition while in hospital under treatment as patients. In any case to safeguard any attempt to escape, extra armed guards can be deployed around the ward of the hospital where the detenus are lodged. The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of the patient-prisoners who are lodged in the hospital is, the least we can say, inhuman and in utter violation of the human rights guaranteed to an individual under the international Law and the law of the land. The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of the patient-prisoners who are lodged in the hospital is, the least we can say, inhuman and in utter violation of the human rights guaranteed to an individual under the international Law and the law of the land. We are, therefore, of the view that the action of the respondents was wholly unjustified and against law. We direct that the detenus in case they are still in hospital be relieved from the fetters and the ropes with immediate effect” It is the bounden duty of the State to achieve the constitutional mandated standards of treatment of under trial prisoners and uphold the dignity of the individual. Dignity of the individual is an avowed pledge in our Preamble and that ‘procedure established by law’ for deprivation of personal liberty must not be cruel, inhuman or degrading is an non-negotiable basic human right engrafted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These constitutional imperatives cannot be whittled down on vague and non-specific security concerns, or the other administrative deficiencies. To permit such a course would tantamount to encouraging recidivistic tendencies in the realm of human rights jurisprudence resulting in the eclipse of the basic standard of civilized treatment to under trial or other prisoners. One cannot lose sight of the memorable words of the apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1994) SCC (Cri.) 1172, “The quality of a nation’s civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law.” (para 10) The State must leave up to its highest commitments, as enshrined in the Constitution, or fall behind the civilizational progress towards a better and just social order. We are surprised at the desperate submission made by the learned counsel for the State that the person in charge was ignorant and therefore unable to understand the grave implications of his conduct of chaining the ailing prisoner. Such conduct on the part of State officials is unpardonable and a blatant violation of the constitutional mandate of a fair, just, unreasonable, non-arbitrary and non-oppressive procedure of law relating to deprivation of liberty. Breaches of such nature cannot be condoned on the excuse of lack of awareness and sensitization. It is for the State to sensitize its personnel, particularly, those empowered with plenary powers of arrest and detention of prisoners. Breaches of such nature cannot be condoned on the excuse of lack of awareness and sensitization. It is for the State to sensitize its personnel, particularly, those empowered with plenary powers of arrest and detention of prisoners. Accordingly, we are of the view that the act of the State for chaining the under trial Santosh Sahani to the hospital bed at North Bengal Medical College on 16.04.2013 is unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that when the action of the State and/or its officials results in a patent violation of the fundamental rights of an individual as guaranteed under the Constitution and that the individual is subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in custody, he is entitled to compensation in the public law domain. [See D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 ] Grant of such compensation in the public law domain is in the nature of a token acknowledgement of the blatant breach of the fundamental rights of the under trial prisoner in our constitutional scheme and is in addition to any other remedy available to him under the ordinary law of the land. Accordingly, we direct the State to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only to the prisoner, Santosh Sahani, whose fundamental rights were so grossly violated. Such compensation shall be made within a month from date. The State shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officials who had perpetrated such infraction on the under trial prisoner after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to them. As we have been informed that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the erring officials, we refrain from initiating contempt proceeding against them in the light of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Citizen for Democracy (supra). As we have been informed that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the erring officials, we refrain from initiating contempt proceeding against them in the light of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Citizen for Democracy (supra). However, to ensure that a similar breach of constitutional commitments in the matter of treatment of prisoners do not occur in the future and bearing in mind the ratio of the apex Court in Citizen for Democracy (supra), we direct the Director General of Police, State of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, Department of Correctional Administration, State of West Bengal , Superintendents of all Correctional Homes in the State of West Bengal, Superintendents of Police and Commissioners of Police in all districts/Commissionerates of Police, State of West Bengal and all members of Police and/or Prison Administration to follow and/or ensure the compliance of these guidelines: (i) As a rule, handcuffs or other fetters like chains, etc., shall not be used on under trial or convicted prisoners while in jail/correctional homes, in medical institutions or other institutions while in custody or during transportation/transit from one place to another, including transportation from one correctional home to another or to court and back. The police and/or correctional home authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct handcuffing of any inmate of a correctional home while he is in such custody or during his transportation from one place to another. (ii) Where the police or the jail/correctional home 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. (iii) 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 hand-cuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand. (iii) 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 hand-cuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand. (iv) 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. (v) Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the aforesaid guide-lines, 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 there after can only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already indicated by us. (vi) We direct all ranks of police and the prison administration to meticulously obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any public official attached to police or prison administration shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. (vii) State administration is directed to circulate these guidelines in English and in vernacular language to all members of police and prison administration for their knowledge and effective implementation. (viii) Principal Secretary, Correctional Home Administration, and the Director General of Police, State of West Bengal are directed to arrange for in house training sessions so as to educate train and sensitize the officials of police and correctional home administration so as to ensure the aforesaid directives are rigorously implemented. Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to Principal Secretary, Department of Correctional Administration, State of West Bengal, Director General of Police, State of West Bengal, Superintendents of all Correctional Homes, Superintendents of Police and/or Commissioners of Police of all districts, Commission rates of Police respectively in the State of West Bengal for necessary compliance.